The good, the bad, and the ugly ...

First to the "good."

I like the idea of a coalition of Muslim nations, and the attack on one is an attack on all, however, I think the Pakistan inclusion, while very necessary, would have India doing back flips, and what's to stop Pakistan from saying, "hey, you hit Iran for Lebanon but you wont hit Indian held territory in Kashmir for us after they raided a Hindu shrine." (which does happen along the border). The Paks withdrawal and what you've done is put the US Military in the position of settling long held region-wide beefs of all sorts. I understand the idealistic angle here, but it is fraught with problems.

The bad...

Now, if it were to become measurably apparent that a nation like Iran WAS, in fact, aiding and assisting terrorism against the US or its allies, then I would categorically strike that nation with sufficient force to bring home the message that the support of terror carries a high price. I feel these strikes should always be retaliatory in nature ....

I find a retaliatory strategy, when our civilians are the target of this enemy, to be unacceptable. You can point to the dangers of preemption in the case of Iraq's WMD's fiasco. However, I can point to the dangers of a retaliation strategy when Bill Clinton felt he simply didn't have enough evidence to capture or hold Bin Laden when the Sudanese offered him to us. The cost of not acting preemptively there manifested itself on September 11th, 2001.


The ugly ....

[US military strikes] should be directed to industrial or military targets. This has the added benefit of hurting the combat-effectiveness of the terror-aiding nation AND showing the local population (and the world) that we DO NOT attack civilians intentionally... unlike the terrorists.

What the hell are you talking about? I'd use your full Christian name if their weren't a public forum. This is implies that we haven't directed any and all attacks thus far, in every instance, at what were deemed to be "military targets." This is the SOP of our armed forces and has been from the very beginning. And let me tell you something, if the enemy is launching RPG's at us from a Mosque, then the Mosque or cave or wherever else they're at IS a military target. And if you're talking about air strikes only, in a nation where our ground troops are yet to be committed, again, I say we have always done this ... well, Clinton hit an aspirin factory in the Sudan, but Bush hasn't. Furthermore, anyone that currently believes that we are no better then terrorists (like Rev Wright) in that we target innocents, will no more be convinced when you hit a tank or weapons factory in Iran. Al Jazeera et al will portray it as innocent casualties no matter what, we've seen that repeatedly be the case whether it is us, Israel, or the UK launching attacks on enemy locations be it in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Palestine. Anyone not already convinced of this will not be turned on a "Titus style" strike. Add to that, what will stop them from behaving like the Vietcong? Building military infrastructure right next to a kindergarten school house, or launching attacks from that school house as they do in Palestine? This mission to demonstrate "hey, we're the good guys" is suprisingly nieve coming from you. Again, I'm not being shitty, its just that very statemnent, "to show them we don't hit civilians unlike terrorists", I mean please, we've BEEN doing that since the second tower fell to the best of our ability; but collateral damage WILL occur. Even in your best strike scenario, SOMEBODY will be either driving by, or delivering food, or cleaning the joint when it gets hit, and Al Jazeera WILL find the bodies and air them.


To summarize:

This may come as no surprise but I prefer preemption. I WOULD have gone into Iraq for precisely the motivations I listed - the "democracy domino effect" (with the 488,000 troops obviously) as a long term answer to radical Islam. As Natan Shiransky (the first political prisoner released by Gorbachev) once said, "The democracy that hates us is safer then the despot whom loves us." And as I stated, if it were to work it would be the ultimate preemption - a free Arab street that's too busy buying their second car, as a solid middle class grows and a much needed Muslim Reformation occurs, to consider blowing himself and Westerners up with a ball bearing laden vest. And I feel that when our civilians are the target of the enemy, retaliation as a policy is unacceptable. Israel only found peace with Egypt when they preemptively struck at a gathering force along their border. They took the Sinai and negotiated from a position of strength. Egypt and Israel have enjoyed a peace that's lasted nearly two generations. On the other hand retaliation strikes have been the policy of Israel regarding the Palestinian territories for more then 25 years now, and Jews are still dying at the hands of Hezbollah.