Tolerance sounds very nice. However, one thing we should note is that those "home-grown" cells in Europe have thrived on the tolerance of Europe. Will someone kindly explain to the people who are busy preaching "jihad" that they're wrong, and that tolerance is the name of the game?

The big stick is one half of the program, I think. The half that meets the current manifestations of terrorism and blunts their efforts. It is the hunting down of cells and their neutralization, whether by incarcerating them or by killing them. It is also the correct strategy: retreating under the face of such attacks merely emboldens the enemy, makes him more likely to strike again.

The second half, the long term half, is to begin establishing democracies where none have existed: inter alia, in the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa. Eventually, I think it is going to be evident that democracy (or a sense of personal ownership in the political and social system of the nation) is the only viable model for the 21st century. And I think we underestimate the carrot of "freedom". Building a free society in Iraq is not going to be an overnight job.

The interesting thing about the "War on Terror" (I put in quotes because I am not sure how one can have a conventional war against terrorists) is that it seems incredibly difficult to persuade people who are already willing to blow themselves up to your point of view by killing them!

Of course, I am not advocating tolerance of suicide bombers. You do have to eradicate them wherever possible. However, it seems that while on the one hand you destroy known terrorists or harborers of them, you have to ensure that the recruitment of terrorists does not accelerate. To do this you need to provide the 'carrot' I spoke of earlier, and find out what legitimate grievances exist within the Muslim community that could be better addressed by the West.

There's never, ever been a third-world democratic state created by foreign power toppling a dictatorship. Democracy must always come from within, particularly when the primary power trying to bring democracy, the United States, has also been the external power primarily responsible for the arrested development of democracy in the Middle East after WWII (particularly with the adventures of Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA in Iraq in the 1950s, and the ousting of Mossadeq). We cannot forgive terrorists, but you absolutely must excuse the inhabitants of the Middle East for their cynicism.

The trouble with offering democracy as the 'carrot' is that that carrot is what *we* want them to have, and not what they've been asking for from the beginning.

Also, the rising power of this part of the world, China, is in no way, shape or form a democracy. I would have said that that "End of History" perspective you hold appeared more true a decade ago than it does today. I happen to agree with you that eventually, economic enrichment of Chinese society may one day lead to democracy, but I think at this point in time it is far from a foregone conclusion.