>=========
>Um, do the terms retaliation, mission creep and escalatory spillovers
>mean anything to you; not to mention the law of unintended
>consequences of venturing into an area of the world where infidels
>aren't welcome?
>Ian
First of all, the confrontational tone is unnecessary.
Second: I was merely brainstorming through what I felt Carrol's position implied. In fact I do NOT like the implications of special forces, mission creep, etc. - as should have been clear by the "on the brighter side" statement - though they are preferable to a bombing campaign.
The important question is more about what we say in the streets. At this point, Carrol's position is welcome. On the incredibly off chance that the US would agree to follow this position, we could then focus on explaining how mission creep and severe cultural/state/community sovereingty violations DO constitute collateral damage (be they through Special forces accidently killing the wrong person, or through blowback a la WTC.)
>
> And on the brighter side, it also doesn't rule out changing the
systemic
> factors that breed terrorism.
>
>
>
>