Sorry I didn't get a chance to reply before now. With two babies under the age of three, my time is not my own. I am enjoying our conversation immensely, as it allows me to honestly review how and why I have reached certain conclusions on this issue, without rhetoric. Thank you for an intelligent and thought-provoking debate.
Further, forgive me if I jump around a bit; I'm writing in between kid-naps and just putting my thoughts down.
Concerning fundamentalist Islamic groups, I did not and do not regard them as our primary enemy because terrorism can and does rise out of any number of places. I encourage you not to lose sight of the broader threat by focusing specifically on that group (although they most certainly deserve a keen eye at all times - we have no disagreements about that).
For example, tribal warfare rampant in Africa stems from border disputes and power struggles, not necessarily religious beliefs. Ireland, another prime example, involved Protestants and Catholics, and bombings and firing on school children most certainly is a form of terrorism. Nevertheless, neither of these stemmed from Islamic fundamentalism.
The difference may be purely symmantical, but I believe that our defense experts are examining all forms of potential threats now, not just the most obvious ones.
In the most evident way, we are seeing a repeat of the pre-World War II demonization and power building process exemplified by the Nazi Regime. While there are obvious variations, of course, the core of the process remains the same: demonize a group of people (in this case, Americans), blame all of your problems on them (that way, your own people do not turn against you), and amass as much power as possible to defeat them. Does this formula fit the current situation in Iraq, Iran, and other places?
Something to ponder...
Further, although we did not touch on it previously, we cannot disregard their complete hatred of Israel and the Jews, a solid ally of America. Israel is a prosperous and civilized sliver of a nation in an unforgiving terrain, has found a steady friend in the United States, and has one of the most brutal, respected, and successful armies in that area. Compared to the poverty, oppression, and indoctrinated hatred of the radical fundmentalists, Israel remains a water mark for those seeking a twisted form of "justification" for their hatred of the United States, no matter how unjustified it might actually be.
Sad to say, Iraq was given ample opportunity to come to the international table and would have been infinitely better off if they had. As noted in my previous post, I do not believe that they, in their current position, are considered the ultimate threat to the United States; I believe it is who they are willing to sell to, and how badly they want to strike back through whatever means possible, that we must watch for.
The same can be said for other countries in that area. The culture of hatred, fed primarily through religious schools, as you noted, has indoctrinated a generation to despise America. Suffering in abject poverty, starving or being constantly oppressed, the people of Iraq (and other countries) are lashing out at their perceived oppressor (the United States). You and I both know that the United States is not the oppressor here, it is the internal regime's unwillingness to comply with the sanctions that has brought about their terrible state, but for those living inside the country, it will appear the opposite. For them, their perception of reality is "reality." To break that cycle of hatred, to eliminate the threat they pose, we must definitively impact their reality.
Believe it or not, for all my "chest beating" and "war yells," I do not relish the thought of war or the deaths of innocents or American soldiers in the least. It is, in my humble opinion, a necessary evil in response to a potentially greater evil, but certainly no cause for celebration. We are plodding to this awful place in an act of self-preservation, nothing more.
As to your question whether we can stabilize Iraq once Saddam has been removed; that, my friend, remains to be seen. Despite a rather sweeping "victory" in Afghanistan, the country is still not stable and will require a considerable amount of time to make it so. Further, Iran is already infiltrating the northern border of Iraq, with forces not aligned in our interests, to seize what they can from that terrority. I believe that once we end Saddam's regime, we will be fighting for longer than expected to protect any replacement.
I also concur with your opinion that Saudi Arabia may rapidly become another thorn in our side. (I see North Korea on the list next, dependant upon their response to our campaign in Iraq, but that is another conversation entirely.) Almost 3/4 of all the hijackers were, as you correctly noted, from Saudi Arabia. Were in not for the Saudi government's willingness to "play ball" with us, to offer intelligence, assistance, bases, etc., I believe our sights would be set on them right now, not Iraq.
I have posted before, even though I tend to be dovish, that I would like to see Bush delineate a doctrine much like the MAD doctrine (mutually assured destruction) that kept the peace during the cold war. That doctrine should state in the event the U.S. is attacked with a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that then upon three days notice the city of Medina will be destroyed with a nuclear device. Should another attack follow, the city of Mecca would suffer the same fate. The pith of this doctrine is that Islam cannot be practiced for all intents and purposes unless Mecca exists. Mecca is to the Muslim what the resurrection is to the Christian. Hence, if such a doctrine existed, many moderate Muslims would find themselves more encouraged to take care of their own black sheep.
While I recognize that there are many types of terrorists, I think we have only to fear the fanatical, fundamentalist Islamic movement as it seems they are the terrorists who seem to have picked the U.S. as their scapegoat.
I have very little time tonight, and have to go, but very much enjoyed your reply and will write later.
Stryker