> ...Could there have been a non-violent alternative to the war?
> Theoretically, yes, but practically, no, as the U.S. government's aim
> was not to put the perpetrators (the most responsible of whom died in
> the bombings anyhow) on trial but to reassert its military might
> (restoring confidence in its competence which was shaken by the
> Pentagon bombing), reaffirm its political leadership, expand its
> sphere of influence (e.g., more US military bases in the Middle East &
> Central Asia), and install a more useful regime than the present one
> in Afghanistan.
That seems to me quite right. Consider where America's "humanitarian" interventions have been centered in the Bush-Clinton-Bush era: since the Gulf War, we've managed to kill perhaps twice the number that died in the WTC in Somalia: establish a protectorate over southwest Europe; and launch a selfless crusade in Afghanistan to rid the world of terrorism. Three points of a triangle containing what for almost a century successive US governments have recognized as the world's greatest geopolitical prize, Mideast oil. This war, like most of America's wars in the last fifty years is a demonstration war -- a warning to all of what happens if anyone presumes to to disturb the American management of the world economy. --CGE