OK I am trying to run through this thought experiment—to think it through to its logical conclusion. Suppose if, after 9/11, we did not launch a conventional war but instead spent the same resources tracking down all of Al Qaida’s financial connections and prevented them from accessing or moving any money; and at the same time we supported the building of a bazillion schools in areas like Afghanistan and Pakistan where ignorance and fundamentalism are rife, schools to counteract the madrassas by teaching basic skills and knowledge that could lead to better jobs in a better economy; and finally we put on a full court press diplomatically to get the Islamic governments and Islamic leaders to vigorously condemn terrorism (which they have not done).

The quick, easy (and shallow responses) would be to say either that the plan above is naïve and wouldn’t work, or that the military approach we’ve taken has done more harm than good and left us less safe than we were. When making these meta-judgments about the state of affairs it is so easy-- and so tempting-- to fall back on political prejudices instead of trying to make an honest evaluation of the best plan. The goal is to keep us safe without betraying our values. If we can have a positive impact on the world, that is a bonus.