Actually I very much agree with everything you say here. I have always believed that targeting specific people is a much better choice than war against a country. ( many years ago I was part of an informal group styled as 'Shoot the officers' )

In the case of Afghanistan we went after Al Quaeda and the Taliban - I think that was a reasonable strategy. In Iraq, going after Saddam could have been better accomplished by doing just that - going after Saddam and his top people. Difficult, but not impossible if we had put the kind of effort into it that we have put into Iraq since 2003. Certainly would have resulted in fewer deaths than what we got.

But of course there is another element to this : since 1975 we have been under a presidential "finding" forbidding assassination by US agents. ( though there have been subsequent 'clarifications' allowing going after Bin Laden for example )

IMO this is one of the really craziest things to come out of the intelligence "reforms". It is okay to bomb a city as long as you are not doing it to specifically kill one person. If he happens to get killed, great, but of course we weren't trying to kill him. Very stupid.

One man, bullet.

Better to shoot Hitler in 1934 than to firebomb Dresden.

>>I mean if we are attacked it will be because we did not take the threat seriously and we did not do what was necessary to prevent the attack by hunting down those who would do such a thing and stopping them before they could do harm.
>>
>>They cannot be reasoned with, bought off, or made to change their minds by changing our behavior. This is not a rational enemy, that can be trusted to act in its own best interest ( or at least what we would understand to be their best interest. ) This is a death-cult which looks at the world through very very different eyes.
>>
>>I actually sympathize. I want them to achieve their goal of martyrdom - soon - I just don't want them to harm non-believers as they do so.
>
>Well, you decribed it prety good. But how actual all-out attacks on entire
>countries fit the bill here ? What You decribed are not countries/armies to be defeated, but illegal or semi-legal organisations which have to be dealt by appropriate organisations such are CIA,NSA,... etc, and if applicable in cooperation with local authorities.
>
>Why it had to escallate into full size wars ever ??
>
>If/When covert officers blows up entire summit of meanest/deadlist clan in waziristan (just as they vawed with beaheded heads of some poor westerners) this cannot possibly leed do deep(er) 'Clash of civilisations' and will not make all that meny people to be angry, feel humiliated, and in seek of revenge.
>But when entire countries are attacked, that is very productive market apeal on very large consumer group saying; - 'Come on, Hit us, Revenge your felow brothers!'
>This kind of 'marketing' works obviosely very well, and more&more of these kind of 'campaigns' West does, more&more cautious/constantly on alert and in fear our life is going to be.
>
>Peace