Chessmaster Allan, the ‘power’ behind #2 is really quite liberating, and opens up a whole range of options.

September 30, the USA sets an ultimatum, say one year, for the delivery of Bin Laden and other AQ operatives. We pass something along these lines as a resolution in the United Nations. This would have been achievable back in the September 2001. Apprehending OBL for the “Crimes of 9/11″ becomes International Law, so to speak.

Six months later, USA: To date, the perpetrators of 9/11 haven’t been located and extradited for prosecution. Countries may be unable or unwilling to police their own territory. In such instances, we will assist these governments by sending forces through regions where we have intelligence regarding AQ. We expect the cooperation of these governments in the enforcement of International Law.”

Invade Afghanistan. Destroy the Taliban. Invade Western Pakistan. Leave troops in both.

Bomb the shit out of Iraq again. Just for the hell of it. Shock-and-awe, just don’t occupy.

Occupy Saudi Arabia under ‘peaceful terms’. Place the Saudi Royals under house arrest. Confiscate the entire assets of the Kingdom of Saud. Leave troops in country.

The hijackers were Saudi, remember? Soon as we have AQ, we’ll draw our forces down, withdraw from country.

That would push some fucking buttons, huh? More targeted but also more morally-justifiable. Focus on enforcement of international law, apprehension of AQ. Definitely would have led to war and conflict, but would we be in a better strategic position?

Certainly here at home we wouldn’t be dealing with the Iraq WMD lies, republican divide-and-conquer patriotism litmus-test bullshit. We might have been a country united in pursuit of our enemies. We might even be driving electric cars by now, with no concern over Iran or Hormuz…

Hey now! I don’t know for sure how this would have played out. I’m just throwing it out there for consideration… 😉