So, what would you advocate? I ask this not with any sarcasm, I am truly curious as to what you think the alternative should be.
That really depends on the context. It is one thing to trace and take out a person with a significant history of violent terrorist attacks (but first we'd have to agree on the terms here), and quite another to start bombing the heck out of the Taliban, for example, even though they offered to deliver OBL to Bush back in September 2001. (And no, GWB did not bomb the Taliban because he was a feminist or pitied the loss of ancient Buddha statues!)
When one party launches a military assault on a country, inflicting heavy civilian casualties, what should be done? Should it go unanswered, which would invite more attacks?
Again, we'd have to agree - very carefully - on all the terms in your description. 9-11 was not a military assault, for one thing. Heavy casualties, yes, but many more died in Afghanistan, and even more in Iraq. Does the response not have to be (a) proportionate, and (b) directed at the actual guilty party?
Next, we should really ask ourselves why we are being attacked in the first place. No-one is born a suicide terrorist. Or a religious fundamentalist. These people have serious grievances. I disagree with their tactics, but we should at least understand what drives them to do what they do.
(Curiously, not long after 9-11 GWB did exactly what OBL wanted done: removed the US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. Troops on Saudi land was one of Osama's major grudges against the US. So Osama got his wish, though of course Bush's move wasn't billed like that.)
I should also remind you that a lot of the collateral damage is caused by cowards who take refuge in population centers and who use women and children as human shields.
One, I wonder how much of that is propaganda. We only know our side of the story, or what the military commanders want us to know. Remember Jessica Lynch? That was all a fabrication. (Not a "human shield" scenario, but a similarly convenient good guys - bad guys story, all made up.)
Two, if you're about to shoot a bad guy, but he's grabbed your {mother|father|sister|son} and is holding a knife to their throat, will you still shoot? Most people probably won't. The police won't shoot either in such a case. But when it's a war in a distant country, suddenly it becomes OK. Collateral damage is the same, except the dead people live in faraway countries and are not our families, so we paper it over.
People say "Well, it's a war, these things happen", but to me that means we shouldn't be doing that in the first place. We all
say war is wrong, but somehow that never stops us. And that's without even approaching the issue of false pretenses for wars, the question of who profits or the question of the end result. Did we get what we wanted in Iraq? Do the Iraqi people think it was worth the price they paid?
I should really shut up now :-) I love how this thread has remained polite and civil despite disagreements, which would never have happened on most sites where politics is the subject, but I don't think we should push it, and I'd hate to be responsible in a smallest part for any hard feelings here. I'll read on, but won't post here after this. Especially as this gentleman says it much more eloquently than I ever could:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUBYI97cUgU