BESharp: I think most people here agree with what you've written. I'm even more cynical on the basics of U.S. policy than you are, though. I think policy is dictated by U.S. interests to the extent that it is not subverted by private financial influence. What gets me most annoyed is when it is subverted by foreign financial influence. Persons or entities in Saudi Arabia may well exert such influence. (And I mean beyond the U.S. policy interests in access to oil reserves.)

However, just about everyone here agrees that the attacks require justice. Almost everyone agrees the underlying purpose for the justice should be deterrence, not revenge. There are a few kooks who think the massacre is just being used as an excuse to raid the 'stans' oil reserves, but the only real dispute here seems to be whether non-force means of coercion can be sufficiently effective, and when they should have been or should be attempted.

There is even agreement that a generalized reduction of international tensions on many fronts is warranted. The speifics require thought on a wide spectrum, though, so nobody has the answers, or pretends to.

The biggest problem is defining the immediate mission and completing it as defined. Answering the questions of how far to go in serving global interests (while impinging upon more immediate U.S. interests) are going to be left to our descendents to figure out, I imagine.