Here, is an opinion peace from Afghani President, Hamid Karzai:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24700828-5013480,00.html

He asks us to consider a holistic approach to combating extremism - not one theatre of combat, but in multiple places.
Not just with combat either as until the economic situation in these places is addressed there will always be potential recruits for terrorist movements.

So - what are the priorities here?
I'm not just talking about where combat should take place, I've no doubt many (including Karzai) would state that Pakistan is now the nexus of these terrorist movements.
I'm talking about the 'how' of combating it. For all the gung-ho militancy we've witnessed in the last eight-odd years, it's always struck me that by consistently bombing these places, we end up having to rebuild those same buildings, lest we render them permanently impoverished which provides an ongoing supply of terrorist recruits.

IMHO, much of the combat action has been like wading in quicksand. For every terrorist cell you wipe out you anger many, destroy economies and ultimately sow the seeds for a new cell to replace it anyway.
Whilst targeted combat action with an effective follow up can work, the 'effective' follow up is often where the will appears to be lacking - after all, it requires far more by way of dedication, patience and resources.

As Iraq is inevitably going to be drawn into this discussion, In the context of this, I'd also like to bring up this link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business/17leonhardt.html

Of course, Saddam was a dictator however he was not close to Al-Qaeda, although there are some indications he may have been willing to occasionally supply weapons to them when it suited him.
In any case, for $1.2 trillion, I can't help but wonder what could've been achieved in other theatres by means other than a direct regime change.

Putting that aside - what are the priorities?
Is it action in Pakistan that's needed? What kind of action? what's the next course in Iraq and Afghanistan? What about Saudi Arabia, Israel and Palestine? Any thoughts on the drug trade in Qatar? What of Syria and Lebanon?

Dear TRTL....have you ever wondered why Militant Muslims are not in the slightest bit worried about American interference in South/Central America?

Do you not wonder why they don't jump up and down about the Ruandan Genocide?

and.. how much do they care about the struggle of the Tamil Tigers?

Is it a mystery why they don't give a damn about the Congo?

What is the common link in all those? (THEY ARE NOT..... you fill in the blank)

But they DO care a lot about:

-Chechnya
-Iraq
-Sth Thailand
-Afghanistan
-E.Timor
-Sth Philippines
-Israel/Palestine.

Now.. what do THOSE place all have in common? (THEY ARE/WERE.... you fill in the blank)

Now.. have you wondered why the men recently convicted of wanting to blow us up in Melbourne and those accused in Sydney did what they did?

Does it have anything to do with the places mentioned above?

Again...what is the common element? Is it 'injustice'? Poverty?

No, sorry..it never has been and is not, and never will be about 'poverty/land/injustice'... but it is about a sense of world community under one umbrella. THEIRS!

If you peel back most of the Muslim anti Western feeling, you will find the same kernel...called 'Israel/Jerusalem'.

Do with that what you like..but I just hope you reflect on it before wasting a lot of time trying to nibble around the edges.

Nations are individual propositions, which is something the GWOT ignores. Of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Pakistan should be the easiest problem to solve.

So far the Bushistas have been bombing the villages along the border, I suspect in the vain hope of producing bin Laden before Bush leaves office. Meanwhile, as you say, the previously disinterested villages have been mobilised by this indiscriminate bombing.

Like the other two, Pakistan is essentially a feudal society. Unlike the other two, it is possible for strong leadership to unite most of the provinces for a common cause, if only in the interest of protecting private wealth in some cases. That leadership would have to be culturally appropriate for Pakistan and strongly supported internationally.

For the sake of neighbourhood peace, India should be involved at a high level. Pakistan needs someone like Imran Khan, who can unite the people and claim legitimacy with western allies. It does not need another US sponsored puppet. Khan would also enjoy the respect of the Indian people and reduce some of the tensions between the two countries.

These are difficult questions TRTL and no easy answers.

A holistic approach is a worthy ideal. If the Middle East, with assistance from others, can improve the wellbeing of their people through the economy, better medical services and education that would go some way to combatting terrorism. If the conditions for terrorism or the breeding grounds, if you like, are removed then the inevitable groundswell of discontent might be quelled. And with it the extremist religious dogma that grows and fuels the fires.

Probably the biggest priority would be addressing the Israel/Palestine conflict because this would have positive spin-off effects throughout the Middle East. A more even-handed global recognition of the situation would go some way in finding a solution. But it won't be easy.

Dear TRTL,

Israeli Security Expert Boaz Gaynor defines
terrorism as, "The use of violence against
civilians to achieve political ends."

He emphasizes that the insurgent attacks on
American soldiers in Iraq or on Israeli soldiers
by Palestinian militants are not acts of terrorism,
although they are part of a military conflict.

Gaynor says that "the West needs to go beyond
military responses alone, the West needs
to offer educational
and social services to the Islamic poor that
have been left to the jihadists for decades."

He claims that Islamic radicalism is a small,
almost marginal part of the Muslim world.
However, the danger lies in its global reach.

According to Gaynor,
the West therefore needs to support
the Muslim moderates throughout the Arab, and
and the Muslim countries, and in Western societies.

Imran Khan also stressed,
when interviewed by Andrew Denton,
that a military solution was not the
answer. He said that
if the West got out of Afghanistan,
and financially assisted the tribes-people,
the tribes-people would deal with the
Taliban problem themselves.

As long as the West continues to bomb their villages
and kill their
people, it only drives the tribes-people into the
arms of the Taliban.

The taliban reflect pashtun cultural traditions that were established long before Winston Churchill sought to justify the use of chemical weapons against them by painting them as sub human. The brits got their blood nose in Afghanistan, the Russians, and now us because we listened to ratbag imperialists that wanted to establish the same logistical route to central asian resources that the brits had dreamed of over a century ago. The taliban will prevail and the sensibility of Australians will not support us being there when all the facts get sifted. We are only there for the US alliance and it will eat us inside out like Vietnam if we can't get out quickly.