I>Bribe the accomplices, undermine the financial basis of the organisation, promise economic help to states for turning against terrorists, support the internal enemies of the Taleban, of Saddam,...), economic blockade of states harbouring terrorists, single below war level surprise military operations against top level terrorists including Bin Laden, clandestine operations including murder in single cases without doubt,...

And that is what Troll calls "nothing"...

Look, if you aren't dealing with enemy states, or even an organised guerrilla army, the traditional concepts of what you do in war and how you win just don't apply. Even calling it "war" strikes me as a bit of misplaced public relations for internal purposes.

One of the most thought provoking items I've seen in the media was the story about a war games scenario which the high-ups in the US military had, a little time ago. It was supposed to be about much the thing we are up against now - a situation where the enemy wasn't armies and states, it was cells of terrorists using modern technology and imagination. Before it was through the military insisted on having part of their army mutiny and go over to the other side, so that they could have someone to fight whom they knew how to fight.

And I can envisage that happening here - a fightable enemy either being created or identified to provide the military and the politicos with something to show for it. But that is not where the danger lies. And going down blind alleys like that will almost certainly end up with creating more of the ultimate weapon - suiciders.