Not at all, Troll. It is often easy to tell who are the "wrong" people to kill, but much harder to decide who is "right" to kill in war. I personally am not in favor of killing anyone except in extreme self defense.

In the Cold War, we never faced what we perceived as our actual "enemy." Instead, we fought wars by proxy, and a lot of the "wrong" people got killed. Afghanistan is the easy example. Heaven forbid the Commies take over Afghanistan! So we armed and trained one side of ruthless bastards while the Soviets armed and trained another side of ruthless bastards, and a lot of regular folks got killed or starved or died of thirst -- the "wrong" folks.

With the Terrorism War, we have an enemy that we really can't face directly. There are no stockpiles of missiles, no intelligence agencies to spy upon, no government we can dance with. So what do we do? We pick a country to bomb the hell out of, lacking an easily identifiable target. Once again, we know that the "wrong" people are dying.

Ideally (IMO), we'd track the guilty bastards down, bring 'em in, try them in an international court, and then let them rot in prison. I'm not in favor of execution, because it makes us no better than the killers, but if, say, Osama got fatally wounded when his headquarters were being raided, that might be a real easy case of the "right" people dying in war.

But by encouraging a vague and subtle fear in the population without specifics, it's the same kind of "Red Scare" tactic used to justify anything the government wants in the name of a great nebulous evil. It would be much harder root out and destroy the sources of terrorism and the causes of the anger that leads to it. Whereas, bombing middle eastern countries one by one shows the public how "serious" we are about it. Nevermind that it will only encourage more terrorism. A faceless enemy is exactly what is needed to get the American public cowering and frightened.