I'm surprised you see such discord. I was under the impression that after 11 parts to this thread, everyone had reached an ambiguous, but still amazing consensus, differing only on matters of degree. It's my understanding that no one favors military action yet.

CarolC's list is a good starting place for both the peacemakers and the warmongers. I, and others, simply think that her items are stated with too much absolutism. The principles, however, are sound.

Do we not all agree that 1. Force is a disfavored action to be used only where other methods prove inadequate to achieve "victory?" 2. Victory should be carefully defined, and appropriately limited, so that it is achievable. 3. All efforts, forceful or otherwise, should show the minimum action necessary to prevent significant future recurrences of mass murder. 4. Victory should entail taking Bin Laden (subject to proof of a certain degree) out of action, at the barest minimum, and taking out the majority of his lieutenants as the realistic minimum. 5. Death to anyone is disfavored, but ethically permissible to prevent recurrences of mass murder. 6. Justice would be most desirably handed out by a Muslim court, or at least by an Arab court, and then, by a world court, but if necessary, by a U.S. or other Western court. 7. Force would be preferably carried out in the following descending order of preference: by as many Muslim nations as possible, then by the U.N, then by NATO, then by a coalition including as many Muslim nations as possible, then by as many Western nations as possible, then by the U.S. alone 8. Force will be used with as little civilian deaths as possible. 9. Force will be used as a last REASONABLE alternative, with preference given to economic pressure. Each should be exerted in as focused a fashion as is reasonably possible (upon Bib Laden operatives first, supporters second, innocent bystanders (Afghani civilians; larger regions) last. 10. Humanitarian and political cooperation, in a respectful fashion, should be given as feasible both for support and for rectification of underlying tensions. This to support intra and international harmony. This should be done regardless of any events occurring above.

Am I wrong that no one disagrees with anything above? The only differences of opinion here now are on the definition of "reasonable, " such as how much time, effort, or other resources must be spent on less drastic efforts before proceeding to an escalation of intensity. Even Bush now states that overthrowing the Taliban or placing a new government in Afghanistan is not an objective, (right?) I would LOVE to drop CARE packages in Afghanistan, but I do not believe that we should wait for six months to judge the result before moving on to the next step. The Bush administration has to play an extremely complicated balancing act to define and achieve desired objectives. Time factors, cultural factors, known but unavoidable risks, unknown risks. . . It's an extraordinary complicated tapestry. But the U.S. public opinion has shown overwhelmingly that they do not want fireworks just for a show, and the Bush administration has shown no inclination to give them such.

Aren't we all fearful but resolved to the fundamentally correct course of action? Or have I missed it? No one here wants to see bombs go off. No one here believes in peace at all costs.