But we can't predict that. And this is just the thing. From the position of a consequentialist trying to minimize the number of deaths, neither the knee-jerk "no war, end the sanctions, free Palestine, democratise Saudi Arabia" approach nor the kneejerk "bomb the fuckers" approach works. For the latter, this is obvious. For the former, in the parrallel universe in which it happened, I do feel that it strengthens Al-Qaida's resolve to do more, not quite as much as bombing Afghanistan, but enough to cause another major terrorist attack(s), a change in position, and a bombing of Afghanistan, and we're back to square one.
That is why I support the well-aimed carrot and well-aimed stick approach. The well-aimed stick is international law, with the blue-helmets as the cops. The well-aimed carrot is a viable Palestinian state, ending the Iraq blockade, and seriously pressing for democratic reforms throughout the middle east.
As Caroll has correctly pointed out many many times, that isn't going to happen. What I don't think he's correct about is that our not demanding it will happen, in specific, targetted powerful language, won't make an impact.
But I dunno, maybe the better strategy is indeed to play left-wing survivalist militia, build a mass underground left movement, and break into mass action when the war ends.
Beyond all the comparitive moral analyses and self-destructive "who's Left" crap, these are the only two options I see before us.