Ebbie,

One in which you could go to work in the World Trade Center and not have to worry nearly as much about some lunatic crashing a planeful of jet fuel into it.

Mine's not the perfect solution, but it's one which — in the long run — will kill fewer innocents than not acting.

Larry,

I wasn't talking about the rangers — those are the kids who just want to be special forces troopers. I'm pretty tight with two SF types (a niece's husband and my daughter's boyfriend) and, believe me, they're scarier than most people know. They just don't tell anybody about it. Were you aware that there was contingent of them on the ground in Afghanistan less than 48 hours after the WTC?

As for history favoring the Afghanis.... True, they kicked out the British and the Soviets, but both those countries went in there to wage conventional warfare. They had no troops trained in fighting in that terrain or equipment that could do the job. The Soviets went in there with tanks, which couldn't maneuver in the mountains and were eaten up by the sand.

The troops the U.S. is going to send in there won't have such encumberances. They will be fast, light and very mobile and they will operate mostly at night. The Rangers will follow when things are softened up for them.

The Afghanis are also not used to troops trained to operate in their high altitudes. Ever hear of the 10th Mountain Rangers? They train at high altitude and are used to breathing rarified air, just like the Afghanis are. Makes a big difference.

Your story about the rabbi and the Nazi is interesting, but a logician like yourself should know you can't argue from the specific to the general. One incident says nothing about mankind's experience; it only illuminates one incident, period.

And, finally, since bin Laden, et al have made this a holy war, I wouldn't bet on infidel Quakers surviving any better in their lair than some of the deadliest killers on the planet. If I had to go in with one group or the other, it sure as hell wouldn't be the Quakers.

cheers,

david