My point is a bit different, though. When it comes to, say, Viet cong or other communist insurgents, their tactic was not always commendable, to say the least, but one could forgive them these "missteps" because they represented progress, at least nominally. That is, their goal was socialism, which in principle is an emancipatory ideal, and for that reason alone these people deserved at least some credit. (I am paraphrasing Hobsbawm here.)
But when it comes to Taliban and Wahabist/Salafist zealots more generally, the goal here is a medieval system of domination that is antithetical to anything progressive - not just socialism or social democracy. That in itself is a sufficient reason to fight these guys, even if they did not murder people who disagree with them, or just to "make a statement".
>From that pov, the motives why the US hunts down these guys are
irrelevant just as it matters little why the x-USSR did so some 30
years ago - obviously they did not it with the intention to benefit
the humanity. But as they say, the road to hell is paved with
intentions, so it matters little what kind they are. All that counts
is deeds, and killing these guys is a good deed, as explained above.
As to your point of blowing up villages - I agree, although I am not sure to what extent it is the villages rather than terrorist hideouts that are being blown. But inasmuch as it is innocent villagers who are being blown - I am all with you on this.
I am sorry if I sound too much like the latter-days Hitch (let him rest in peace) - but I simply cannot muster any sympathy toward religiously inspired terrorism. But I do not limit these feelings to islamists, I extend them also for the likes of Breivik and fellow fascists. I think that the world would be a better place without them.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."