A qualification.
I do NOT believe justice is attained by bombing innocent civilians. The premise is a contradiction in terms, for one thing.
I do think that a military assult on the Taliban and al-qaida networks is justified, and that any such assault benefits from air support. I don't doubt that any such campaign will claim the lives of some innocent civilians. But the extent of such harm is not preordained. Do I have confidence that the Bush Admin will limit such harm because it is a humanistic endeavor? Not at all. I do think they will seek limits on such harm because it goes to the political effectiveness of their campaign.
I might note the Somali operation did not entail bombing but claimed the lives of thousands of non-combatants in Mogadishu. Somalia was exactly the implied course advocated here in the name of international/UN law.
Suppose I thought the whole military option was doomed from the start. Certainly this is plausible for all the reasons advanced here. The fact is that it is inevitable. Why waste resources standing against the inevitable? When you have lemons, get out your lemonade recipies. Many of the peace movement issues could be supported in the context of collective security (Palestine, global poverty, civil liberties, illegitimate regimes in the ME, Central Asia, & South Asia). But calls to cease military action instantly focus all public attention on precisely what is a) the only conceivable direct response to terrorist attacks, and b) going to happen anyway. So the peace movement in this sense is willfully irrelevant, hence perceived as indifferent to victimization in the homeland.
mbs