I don't know, M. From what I'm hearing, fighting these terrorist networks may prove to be just as frustrating as fighting the drug networks. Though I certainly don't understand much about them (yet), they apparently consist of extensive webs of "cells" or other entities scattered throughout many countries, and function in ways that are probably foreign to most of us. For example, I heard some expert on NPR explain that they often function *without* central leadership, through some model he didn't really get into. It is difficult to monitor their communications in part because they are set up such that some cells are out of touch with others, or only one member of a cell may be in touch with others cells, etc., so the lines of communication are minimized in number. BTW, this was compared to, and sounded somewhat similar to, models used by drug networks.


I heard as well (can't recall the source) that these networks run through generations, so that killing existing active terrorists may mean only their replacement before long with younger counterparts.


I'm sure we could do some damage to terrorist organizations, but is it at all realistic to think we can come close to eliminating them? I have some doubt. I fear trying forcefully to wipe out these networks may only slow them down temporarily, while further fueling their hate, and ultimately leading to more deaths. I'm not sure this is true, but it seems like a real possibility.


Thus, with regard to minimizing the future loss of life, even putting aside any moral considerations, and looking at it purely as a strategic matter, I'm wondering if much more consideration should be given to nonviolent strategies. I don't know, but this is what I'm thinking about.


A counter-argument might be that a lack of forceful violent response will only make others comfortable with the idea of aiming their own terrorist activities at us in the future. So does this mean we're damned if we do, damned if we don't? I'm not sure, but I think what it may mean is that our immediate, relatively short term response to these events will have little to do with the long term elimination of terrorism. That will depend on diplomacy and open discussion of the kinds of policy issues Chris Alger and others are talking about. Such grappling with underlying social/political causes would seem to be the only thing with serious potential to minimize terrorism in the future.


Let me be clear that I have no commitment to being "right" on this. What I've said is just the way it looks to me today. I just want to see the full range of options and philosophies kept alive in public discussion for fear of jumping too quickly at one approach which may have very grim consequences. Unfortunately, I'm not so sure our leaders want the same thing.