Well, lessee. If were not retaliating for the attacks of 9/11, then just what are we retaliating for? Anthrax attacks? But it hasnt even been established that the perpetrators are Moslem (although I agree that they likely are), let alone that they are a group of Afghani peasants. Maybe were retaliating because of some hypothetical crime that Afghani peasants may commit at some point in the future? If so, why cant I retaliate against you because you may conceivably attack me for this post?
Our government may be wrong in retaliating the way it does, but, tough, we have one government which formulates one retalatory policy, which will stand at least till the elections.
Personally, I dont believe that retaliatory violence is libertarian at all. The belief that it is justified is the root cause of all modern wars. But wrong retaliation isnt retaliation at all. It is simply lashing out in anger at the nearest convenient target. My ex-wife used to put me through the grinder because she had a bad day at work. She would then say that she needed to unwind. Attacking Afghani peasant is exactly the same thing. Random violence for self-satisfaction. I doubt that even Rand would support that.