Well, it is a very complex issue.


I'm not saying the war against terrorism will necessarily be successful in a major way, or that it will be easy. It will be at least quite difficult. However, the comparison I was trying to make is that the war on drugs is for all practical purposes IMPOSSIBLE to win because of the economic rewards involved. Terrorists may have many reasons for what they do, but they don't all get rich by being terrorists, whereas virtually all drug dealers do get rich (if they survive long enough). So there are economic forces fueling the drug trade, and I believe these forces are pretty much unstoppable. Also, there are far more drug dealers in the world than there are terrorists.


The Palestinian issue needs to be resolved; whether it can be, and how, is another question. It is one main source of terrorist pressure.


Another main source is the basic conflict between strict Islam, or strict interpretation of the Koran (I'm not sure which here), and the consumer society of the Western world. We aren't going to stop broadcasting TV shows, we aren't going to stop playing rock music, and we aren't going to force our women to dress to hide everything. As long as Muslim elements think this is evil and that we are thereby hurting their society as well as our own, we have an irreconcilable conflict (similar to what Mason pointed out in another post).


U.S. policy can be, and has been, a source of friction too, but except for the worst cases of the past, I don't think the U.S. is doing much now that could bring a great deal of legitimate criticism. It is also somewhat ironic that many of the countries who have large populations which don't like us for our ways of doing business or politics are themselves far from ideal in how they treat people. In fact many of them probably have pretty poor human rights records. What I'm saying here is that if they don't like us it doesn't necessarily mean its all our fault; some of it may be, but there will always be those who don't like so-and-so.


Finally, as in the irreconcilable conflict above (consumer society vs. strict Islam), there is just no answer other than to hope that the youth of these countries grows gradually more open-minded. Religious rule has historically been very inflexible so this may take a long time.


I think it is important to make a distinction between Islam, even strict Islam, and terrorism. The ratio of terrorists to Muslims is undoubtedly very low. We don't want to alienate those Muslims who are not terrorists yet we must stop terrorism. I don't think you can really negotiate much with terrorists or hope that appeasement will work. Once they cross the line to become terrorists they are no longer willing to reason the situation out with you, IMO.


I think a broader interchange and dialog and atmosphere of mutual respect with the Muslim world would be very helpful. However, the more reasonable amongst them will surely understand if we do not tolerate terrorism against us, any more than they would accept it against them.


I think the free world is large and strong, and the moderate Islamic world is sizable too; we may even get some support from the moderate Islamic world in the fight against terrorism. Surely as crazy as the world is, it isn't mostly crazy; most Muslims aren't terrorists, and most of the world will be glad to see a joint international stance against terrorism.


Some of our policies, or what seem to be our policies, may well have caused much resentment in parts of the world from time to time. It seems to me to be stretching it to jump from this to the conclusion that we have CAUSED terrorism, however.