Let me state for the record that I truly believe our military aerial strikes do more harm than good for exactly the reasons you list. Imagine you're the target of our outstanding air force who've perfected the ability to lob bombs and missiles from basically invisible airplanes with very little chance to get shot down anymore.

The impression to those in the target zone isn't awe for the awesome technology unleashed upon them but instead the cowardice of the perpetrators. Perhaps that's why in past wars such as WWII, we weren't viewed with such derision. When our military attacked, it was with great peril and sacrifice. It now appears to the victims that we're at some carnival shooting gallery waiting for our plush stuffed toys when we've run out of quarters.

When I said surgical strikes I didn't even think of aerial drones to tell you the truth. I meant people on the ground at risk of people shooting back at them, the kind of things that cops on the streets face every day. It's absolutely true that there will be places on Earth where we cannot get to the bad guys. In those areas we have no choice but to wait them out. They can't do any damage inside their protective enclaves but they become vulnerable when they're prepared to move out and strike. Our intelligence then needs to be in the peripheral areas where we're watching like hawks for those movements. It's not perfect but that's unatainable.

For you to insist on that perfection of security you place yourself in the same liberal trap we've put ourselves into with respect to tort in America today. Parents, in their zeal to never allow their children to be exposed to risk, have used lawyers to create a sterile environment, one where risky behavior or equipment is never tolerated. Schools have done away with gymnastics programs because of fear of lawsuits if their balance beam is too narrow. We all survived childhood riding our bikes without helmets. Many parents can't imagine their children not having an annual flu shot while our immune systems get weaker and more dependent on outside assistance.

Preemptive war falls into that same trap. We simply cannot condone risk anymore. We have to destroy all risk before it gets to us regardless of how little the odds are of any of it personally affecting any one individual. 9/11 was a pisser to be sure but, if we had an event like that each year for the rest of our existance, the odds of it affecting any one of us would still fall far below the risk we assume each day simply going out our doors. That's not to minimize the psychological and economic impact it has. We need to certainly learn from any attack and try to prevent it but overreaction is worse than difficult and messy low level intelligence steps that are fraught with their own brand of peril.

You've somehow grown into an illusion that we can make life safe without a fundamental shift in human behavior. MILITARY ACTION DOES NOT CHANGE BASIC HUMAN BEHAVIOR except on an extremely local and short term level. Cultural evolution changes human interaction and it takes decades to see the smallest of changes even with severe prodding. The most effective method of behavioral change, from what I've studied and observed, is using your own ethical behavior to set examples for others. I get farther with the development of my own children by setting good examples and appealing to their consciences when they stray from that course than I do by dictatorially setting standards.

Art