[annalex]

those who say we could have avoided it by staying out of the affairs of other [countries] are right.

No, they are wrong. We could have avoided it by having NO foreign policy at all. Under any meaningful foreign policy we would recognize that Israel and West Europe are better allies than, say, Iraq and China; and then if Israel is at war with someone other than West Europe we woudl have a degree of involvement (or is it entanglement) on Israel's side. And that would have caused the wrath of Mr. Laden just the same.

What would have helped if no illusion of valueless and clueless foreing policy were created by x42.

[LSJohn]

Under any meaningful foreign policy we would recognize that Israel and West Europe are better allies than, say, Iraq and China;

Is it possible that we don't need allies with whom to have mutual defense pacts, but merely friends with whom we cooperate when it serves mutual purpose to do so? How many of our "allies" do we really confidently expect will act on our behalf when it is not in their own current interest to do so?

Maybe alliances should be made at the moment when needed and only for the purpose and duration of the current need for cooperation.

[A.J.Armitage]

We may well need entaglements with the Israelis and Western Europe(I'm still out on that one), but if we didn't have them the attack would not have happened. It was a reaction(an evil reaction, of course) to our policies, whether or not the policies are necessary on our part. It does matter whether or not they're necessary, because if they are these kinds of attacks are, to put it somewhat coldly, a price we have to pay, and if not our leaders are fools, but it's now important as a question for future historians and policy in the non-foreseeable future. For now, they only thing that matters is the conflict ahead of us.