I missed Mark's post the first time around. I think much of it is well-taken. In one respect, it echoes what I've said -- that all military options will be more difficult and less rewarding (from the standpoint of the war-mongers) than apparent ex ante.
But in the main I think Mark underestimates the power of the Admin and its allies to cope with OBL et al.
The Israel point is interesting, particularly now that the Prez in his press conference last night explicitly indicated his support for a Palestinian state. I can't remember that ever coming from Clinton. But this whole affair is about much more than Israel, and I doubt as much will change in response to OBL as mark expects.
I remember before the Gulf War, against which I marched, Iraq was built up into some hugely potent military power. Mark may be falling prey to some of this now, though the adversary is obviously of much different shape.
mbs
I am reforwarding (somewhat cut) a post from Mark Jones that I forwarded a week ago. No one seemed to take notice of it at that time, since members of the list (especially Doug, Max, Steve Perry, and Seth continue to offer "practical" suggestions of what to do (i.e., what leftists should urge the government to do) which, in fact, are merely more delicate versions of what Mark describes as surrender. In other words the practical solutions being recommended on this list, when stripped of their rhetoric, are grounded on the proposition that terrorism works.