Therefore, we should decare war on the fanatics, the individuals responsible.
That would be the Taliban.
We should identify these individuals as it becomes possible, make our case, and announce to the world that no quarter will be given in their personal elimination , collateral death & destructon be damned.
Exactly what we are doing to the Taliban.
After several such successful actions, killing thousands of these fanatics, the rest will learn our way. -- To live & let live. -- Or learn to die opposing it.
So you think after we rid the world of the Taliban, we should just leave and allow another just like it to rise?
This stratagy is much like that used to pacify the 'indian terrorists' on the frontier. --- ANYone living as, or with, an outlaw [terrorist], was considered fair game. It worked then in the US.
-- It will now, in the world. ---- IF we make it clear there is no where to run, & no escape.
Pure hubris.
Are you going to declare war on anyone that doesn't meet your moral standards? How about the Chinese? We don't have that kind of power, nor should we exercise it if we did, not because of what it would do to others, but because of what it does to us.
Do you want an example? In this case, in Afganistan, we assumed our right to manipulate regimes toward our preference. That means whoever wishes to corruptly buy influence within our own government gains material advantage as enforced by military proxy. In the case cited, it was Unocal. What did it do? It gave the Taliban the tacit concession of the US government necessary to establish their permanence. How did that result?
It wasn't merely the kind of corruption in the Clinton administration that would sell out our security for a mere $300,000 campaign donation that precipitated these events. The assumption that we have such a right allowed the entire infrastructure of such influence buying to develop. We have seen its fruits all over the world.
How then should we have proceeded? Why was it that Bush lost to Bubba? Iran/Contra? Was that a failure of policy or leadership? In my view the latter. Lacking the ability to communicate why it was necessary to support the Contras such that the Congress would provide the funds, PoppaBush chose to use dealing drugs to our children to illegally finance a legitimate war effort against communism in this hemisphere. When it came to the election and exposing Bubba's corruption, I have a hunch that blackmail was and may still perhaps be involved. Thus the ability to sell influence became the determinant in electability instead of leadership qualities.
It is always harder to see why a system prevents problems than to see how its lack precipitated such. The difficulty is in identifying those principles of governance that would have prevented the incidence of these particular events. In our case the number and scope of elements in which Constitutional principles have been violated are so many that one could spend all day pointing and arguing. This is why so many of the remedial suggestions I have offered are preventative in nature.
It is never too late to start, and the situation is never so urgent as to justify ignoring them. See above.