Academically both of you are, at least in part, correct. A long term solution will be gained through greater cultural understanding. Winning the hearts and minds if you will.

But, as far as securing our short term security the zealots, read terrorists, must be purged.

Let me give an example to illustrate my point. A man breaks into your house and kills your family. The police respond and arrest him. The courts try him and sentence him to death. At that point, since the threat to society is neutralized, the psychiatrists can come in and have a good chat with him about his feelings. Then if they see that he was wronged in some way they can work to try and prevent the same sequence of...

Academically both of you are, at least in part, correct. A long term solution will be gained through greater cultural understanding. Winning the hearts and minds if you will.

But, as far as securing our short term security the zealots, read terrorists, must be purged.

Let me give an example to illustrate my point. A man breaks into your house and kills your family. The police respond and arrest him. The courts try him and sentence him to death. At that point, since the threat to society is neutralized, the psychiatrists can come in and have a good chat with him about his feelings. Then if they see that he was wronged in some way they can work to try and prevent the same sequence of events from happening again. But, the killer is still put to death as he is still guilty.

Apply this logic to terrorists. We kill the ones that will not be won over, thus securing short term security, while reaching out to the average citizen to reduce the long term threat.

Without both approaches I believe we will be in for a very long fight.

Bane, I'm in full agreement.

The administration's problem is that it only thinks of what are fundamentally short term goals, even over very long periods of time. (The longterm goal for the situation in Iraq that Bush proposes is essentially no different from his short term goals: secure the country, create a democracy.)

I think the reason the war has meandered as it has through the last few years is because they lack any substantial long-term direction or strategy. It is simply a short term strategy stretched over a very long time frame. It doesn't answer the question: what should we do if a democracy proves unfeasable in Iraq in the short term? Simply wait there and catch bullets until it...

Bane, I'm in full agreement.

The administration's problem is that it only thinks of what are fundamentally short term goals, even over very long periods of time. (The longterm goal for the situation in Iraq that Bush proposes is essentially no different from his short term goals: secure the country, create a democracy.)

I think the reason the war has meandered as it has through the last few years is because they lack any substantial long-term direction or strategy. It is simply a short term strategy stretched over a very long time frame. It doesn't answer the question: what should we do if a democracy proves unfeasable in Iraq in the short term? Simply wait there and catch bullets until it is? The lack of a long term strategey also makes it very dificult to tell who is on our side and who isn't. Everyone shares our short term goals of government and stability, but others have different long term goals. What are ours?

Further more, I think you have a very good point in that I don't believe that the people in the Iraqi government were selected carefully enough. It is to often that we find the members of the Iraqi government and Iraqi military are people actively working against us. From a military stand point, it makes no sense to hand ammunition to someone who is shooting at you.

As we fight, if we ever want to win, we have to start thinking of a way to convince them, and change the minds of the people who are fighting us.