mbs: The aforementioned legal solution is not very compelling in terms of effectiveness. It errs on the side of minimizing the loss of innocents in Afghanistan. I sympathize with the motive, but the means are deeply problematic.
Once again, the simpler explanation is more appealing: all the economic stuff aside, from the standpoint of ruthless efficiency, the best means to counter-attack is to do what the Administration is doing. The economic/hegemonic explanation is not any more well-founded because the Bush Admin eschewed legalistic, multilateral means. Some of them have indicated that they want war, though not for the reasons you mention. But I don't see how this explanation for the official policy can be supported at this point.
I do find persuasive all the worries about instability and a mass mobilization of Islamic clerical fascism, but not enough to think some more covert approach like Carrol's army of assassins is plausible. Infiltrating small groups into a Taliban-controlled nation without any air cover seems like more of a sucker's gambit than what is happening now.
mbs