the above also reminds me of this hypothetical piece I read on the New Republic site:

The New Republic Online: Easterbrook

While this writer is totally correct about the political repercussions that woud have ensued had we gone to war with Afghanistan based on the August 6 PDB. What the writer seems to overlook (in his basically hawkish viewpoint--something Russ Baker has pointed out is inherent in this argument over Clarke) is that there might, possibly, be a range of options for how to handle the threat of Al Queda--maybe even a few that were more measured than an all out war and land invasion. In a way, as funny as his little satire is, it points to the utter lack of imagination present in our culture at this time. We are led to believe the basic litmus test for any threat to national security is "can we justify a military bombardment?" and short of bringing down the hammer of American might in all its shock and awe, the next best thing we can do is simply go back to our vacation and wait until we see something spectacular which can justify our power grab. this is a completely cynical and frankly lazy way of viewing our role in the world. If all that we are capable of is brute force--even in the service of rhetorical claims to liberty or freedom--we're not all that different from any dominant world power that came before us and we share a rationality with the "evil" we're supposed to despise.