No, you still know whom you are killing, because of the human INTEL and not because they are carrying knives.

Another point, on your side, is that once the Jihaders know that the US is watching with INTEL, etc., then they will be much more secretive and not have open air training camps and, thus, be more difficult to detect, target, etc. Then the US has three fall back positions: First, we are much harder to attack now than on 9/11. Second, the attacks we are now most concerned about are not just two wacko Jihaders in Boston but a nuke in a boat in Boston harbor. Third, generally our INTEL around the world is much better now than in 9/11 -- anyone wanting to slip a nuke into a boat in Boston harbor will have a much tougher time getting from start to finish for that project than in 9/11. From banking, finance, electronic communications, satellites, HUMINT, etc., the US has a much closer eye on Jihaders now than in 9/11.

> There's one simple reason the USA is in the middle east - oil. Making sure it keeps flowing.

Likely so. Some in Israel hope not. Actually, some in the Arab oil states should like the US 'police' activities in their area.

But oil is not why the US is in Afghanistan. W wasn't much on the Afghan effort, but Obama wanted to say that the country that attacked us was Afghanistan and not Iraq so wanted to claim that W was wrong going to Iraq. Once Obama was in office, he tried a 'surge' in Afghanistan that didn't much work and now is about just to pull out. To me, Obama was just playing US politics and has had no interest in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

> So does some war-hawk talking about how we should push a button and end the outrage that we created with yet another bomb.

> Maybe we should trade, the militant cleric for you, as some sort of reverse prisoner-of-war deal, to help keep the peace.

War is hell. I know that and don't like it.

But we are in a war in Afghanistan. Then, did I mention, war is hell? So, part of how we do that war is push buttons on the controls of drones. That's part of why war is hell. But, Afghanistan was the base of the 9/11 attack on the US that killed 3000 innocent US civilians. That was war and hell. So, to defend ourselves, we went into Afghanistan and eventually got Bin Laden. Then we tried to set up a modern government there to replace the Taliban that let Ben Laden set up a base from which he attacked us. To defeat the Taliban, we use HUMINT and INTEL, heavily where the Taliban leadership is hiding in the Pakistan tribal regions, to identify Taliban leadership. Then we track them with drones. When we have a clear shot at such a bad guy, a USAF guy in a box in Nevada pushes a button. It's hell. Sometimes women and children get killed, like they do in nearly all wars. Did I mention, war is hell? I don't like it. And I didn't like 9/11 either.

> Or, you know, you could try for a foreign policy that didn't involve holding a gun to everyone's head.

That's not nearly all there is to US foreign policy. I don't much like US foreign policy, tries to do too much, is too blunt sometimes, to gentle and even naive other times, and usually too simplistic. Still, a gun to the head is not nearly all of US foreign policy. In Afghanistan, we could have just leveled the place, all from the air, in weeks, the whole place, dogs, cats, rabbits, goats, sheep, men, women, and children. Easily. Instead, we tried hard to give them a constitution, a freely elected government, a freely elected parliament, roads, schools, hospitals, trained and equipped their police and military, tried to protect their villages, etc. But it didn't much take root. Essentially no one in Afghanistan was prepared to sign on and support the government we were trying to help them have. So the Taliban was able to run a powerful shadow government, use Mafia techniques to keep the villages 'in line', extract cash to pay for their war, etc. But our efforts were far from just holding a gun to heads.

> started picking on smaller enemies with less resources

My view is that the US has been too active around the world. But the US is not nearly responsible for the rise of radical Islam, and radical Islam is not aimed nearly at only the US. In particular, radical Islam against the US is not seriously from the US "picking on" anyone.

Really, radical Islam is based on a simple, old dynamic: Some people want more power. So, in heavily Islamic countries with a lot of oil money sloshing around, people who wanted more power, e.g., Bin Laden and various Islamic clerics, saw a way to pursue power: Use Islam to get some young people up on their hind legs and use oil money to pursue projects. Boom. 9/11.

There's a lot of pushing and shoving, heavily enabled by oil money: So, Saddam wanted to push against Iran. And Iran was eager to push back. So the US helped Saddam. Then Saddam wanted to push against Kuwait and then Saudi Arabia, and the US pushed back. Now Iran wants connect with Syria, influence Lebanon, and push against Israel. In Egypt, the Islamists didn't like the secular dictator and got rid of him, and now are making an even worse mess out of Egypt. Similarly in Libya. Similarly in Syria. And Iran .... So, there's lots of pushing and shoving, again, enabled by oil money. And it helps that the culture is so heavily dominated by Islam's 500 year old traditions that there is so little more modern culture. But no way is much of that pushing and shoving due to anything the US did or did wrong.

No, it bloody was not. Many of those people hadn't even been in Afghanistan. The ones who were, and who "received training" had mostly received that in the context of fighting Russia. The myth of the 9/11 training camp in Afghanistan is entirely made up. Terrorist camps themselves are a myth. Militias train in the hills with weapons, terrorists don't execute those attacks and don't need/get that training.

Further, you've killed over 200 people, almost every one civilian, for every person killed in the 9/11 attacks. In retribution, against people who weren't involved.

> No, you still know whom you are killing, because of the human INTEL and not because they are carrying knives.

The same HUMINT you pick and choose to justify invading Iraq? The same HUMINT that says "bomb that wedding"?

Because your intel is notoriously bad, especially in that area of the world - even now, and there's such a conflict of interest at all levels.

No, it's just straight-up murder when you drone-bomb someone without on-screen visible reasons (driving a tank) because you have such a low standard of proof - it wouldn't qualify to get a warrant to search the person back home.

But even if your intel was perfect, your leaders ignore anything that doesn't let them proceed with the already-planned mobilization. Iraq wasn't a mistake, Iraq was one of the largest cases of mass murder on the planet - second only barely to monsters from our past. And it was planned before 9/11, and before the cooked-up WMD scare, etc.

> Really, radical Islam is based on a simple, old dynamic: Some people want more power.

No, really? Because that's only exactly like every other group on the planet.

> In Egypt, the Islamists didn't like the secular dictator [that we installed] and got rid of him

Funny that. And funny how you make a big deal about secular when it's the fact that he had people abducted for secrets trials and executions, and that the USA backed him, than his religious status, that bothered the Egyptians.

Oh, and that he was a dictator, and felt he had the right to rule for life.

But yeah, just radical Islamists...

> There's a lot of pushing and shoving, heavily enabled by oil money:

Yes. Texas oil money. And other.

> But no way is much of that pushing and shoving due to anything the US did or did wrong.

You're probably wrong, but it's a tellingly pathetic defense for a pathetic position regardless.