I have to agree with some of the points and believe that our president may have set himself up for a real butt kicking with his rhetoric- by claiming this to be a war on all terrorism, as soon as a bomb goes off anywhere in the world, detractors will scream that Bush is a failure. Another point that is made in this article is the number of secret deals that are being made with terrorist states to gain their "support" (do we really believe that Syria, PLO etc. will ever support us). We have already bargained away nuclear control treaties in India and Pakistan- are high tech nukes in the hands of the Pakistanis really a way to insure our safety??? We (conservatives) used to use a very simple and important formula when it came to military activity. Have a defined goal, defined target, know the definition of victory and a clear exit strategy. In this case we have given our president carte blanche without answering the most important questions. How do we define victory, what is our exit strategy???

From every thing that I'm seeing, I don't understand why you have a "GAG ALERT"

Everything in this artical is true for the most part.

Many Republican loyalist echo the same feelings, mainly that the country is being patient because they anticipate a very large and very decisive action by the U.S.

If the U.S. choses the narrow approach and terrorist leaders like Saddam and Yasar are still going about their business, the citizens of this country will be greatly disillusioned and will likely be political suicide for the Bush Administration.

This is a campaign, not a battle. Sure, bin Laden is the primary target right now, but that's because he is the clearest danger. Syria, Iran, and others are being given an opportunity to renounce terrorism today.

Once we have dispensed with bin Laden our focus will turn to other sponsors of terrorism, possibly including those nations.

George W Bush doesn't lie. He will do exactly what he said.

This Bozo doesn't use any type of history to make his case. GW touched the third rail Social Security and when elected followed through. He said he would have a tax cut and then he did it, etc.etc.

Take a look at how he turned around the facilities and the management of the Texas Rangers. He finished one project then tackled the next one. Too many projects and too many words are the mark of politicians like Clinton...all show and no go.

Reagan and GW never much cared about anything but results. They will both work on THEIR agendas and let others talk about them. Anyone that lived in Dallas knows that GW never showed up on TV while he was the General Partner, he let the professionals get the face time. Now the beautiful Ballpark in Arlington is paid off 10 years early and the team continues to make the locals cry like Cub fans.

q_an_a The retail Republican

Fighting terrorism worldwide was a difficult concept from the beginning. How the USA goes about that will necessairily involve some interesting avenues. I believe that by getting certain nations to commit to helping us we force them, in the world community, to stand up and be counted. We know ahead of time, their position. There are all kinds of pressures. It is far better for us to provide a way for them to comply (save face) than to just declare that we are warring against them. If we manage to avoid going to war with a state because of this, it's a good thing. At least we will have given them the opportunity before we engage them in battle.

I must confess that this posting sure had a ring of truth to it. Maybe it's the last eight years that conditions expectations. Maybe it's the recollection of Powell's dovish interference in Desert Storm and the shift from "we would like the cooperation of other nations but we don't intend to wait for it" to the one world coalition building that seems to be taking place right now. Maybe it's knowing that Afghanistan is nothing more than a pirate's cove, giving deniability and cover for the true perpetrators of murder on American soil. Maybe it's just this gut feeling that unless and until we take out Baghdad in a horribly visible and effective way our enemies will laugh rather than tremble. These are all the things I need to discount in order to believe that W, whom I voted for and support completely as to his words thus far, will prevail and deliver on his promise.

I also agree with lots of the post. The fact that the Taliban has spent the past two weeks playing games with us.... including making demands etc... this tells me that whoever is making the call (Bush? Powell? Cheney??) whoever it is doesn't have what it takes to win this war. Period. The Taliban should be a memory right now.

how does this reporter know what Bush has done so far?

People can show you facts. People can show you quotations. People can point to all the circumstances. You, and others like you, refuse to see what is patently obvious. You would rather believe what you WANT to believe. You hear what you WANT to hear.

Ever since day one, the Adminsitration has watered down its response. Further and further. When an official comes up with yet another rationalization for its watering down action, you simply buy into the rationalization hook line and sinker.

The author points out that Hizbullah has actually killed Americans. Hizbullah is supported by Syria and Iran and has been so for years. Bush asks for an agreement that will allow him to sell arms to the very people that killed our soldiers.

In response, you simply buy into the line that "he'll get around to them". Question: Is this a Total War or not. I would submit that the Administration intends quite a bit less than total war. I have been saying it since the day after the attack. The circumstantial evidence to day supports me, not you, and yet you refuse to see what is placed in front of you face. I don't understand.

I'm hoping we'll take out Bin Laden, then we'll take out the Taliban and any other country. Plus, if we take out Syria and Lebenon, Yasser Arafat won't have anyone else to turn to for his terrorism. And I'm saying this as one who, until Sept 11, thought Palistine should have their own state. Now I don't care if all of them are removed from the face of the earth.

Maybe we should bomb an aspirin factory or two to keep the media satisfied, it worked before, no reason it shouldn't work again.

How do you know what he has done?

We doubting Thomases have neither seen nor heard any concrete action. There are not even reports of rumors that anything is actually happening.

You ask how does the reporter know what Bush has done. Well, the reporter cannot know what is done secretly. But neither can you. Therefore, there are two conclusions. Either something is being done or something isn't. It's literally that simple.

Now if something was being done, it would be tough to keep a lid on it. One would expect someone that doesn't like us (and there are many who don't) to say SOMETHING. One the other hand, to assume that something IS being done, one must simply take the government's word for it.

I am not willing to do so. I did not accept the government's word when we were fighting in Yugoslavia, when we burned down Mount Carmel, when FBI snipers killed Mrs. Weaver, when we were told there was light at the end of the tunnel in Vietnam. Why on earth would (or should) I do so now.

I share your concerns. I wonder whether GWB and his administration have the stones to do whatever it takes to put these scumbags away.

On the other hand, I think he has earned the benefit of the doubt. Personally, I know I have underestimated him every step of the way, and he almost always proves me wrong. Maybe, with the proper use of carrots and sticks, we can get countries like Syria and Pakistan in line. If they believe that we are willing to make a massive use of force, maybe we won't have to.

I don't pretend to know what the right thing to do is. I am only suggesting that W may be taking the best approach, even if it doesn't look that way now.

The whole thread is ridculous. You do not have any information to base your analysis. I suspect the situation is far worse than the public has been told. The chemical and dirty plutonium threats are real. They are taking their time analyzing all the aspects. I have confidence in the abiliy of the people at the top.

Business Week is known as America's only anti-business business magazine. Take that for what's it's worth.

Like some of the other posters, I find it hard to disagree with this article in general. I think it serves as a warning that we better be serious about ending world terrorism and always mindful about who we get in bed with to get the job done.

At the same time, I don't feel it's wrong to concentrate on bin Laden right now, since his network seems to be far-reaching. I wouldn't stop there by any means.

I have confidence in the abiliy of the people at the top.

Read: "I have blind faith in the abiliy of the people at the top."

The horrendous problem with this article is its basic assumption that in dealing with past enemies and harborers of terrorism training/activities, we mock our goals and are not trying to really wage war upon terrorism at large.

What bull#hit.

By engaging countries, especially Islamic countries that would LIKE to be free of the radical groups who terrorize their own nations as well, we are not only opening avenues of future cooperation and providing hope therein, but are helping to elevate the Islam religion back to its origins. Terrorists, by manipulating the Islamic laws, corrupting them and punishing those who fail to follow, have not only spread their anti-freedom venom overseas, they have spread their vile and outrageous, cruel beliefs throughout the Islamic region.

In his wisdom, in his unbelieveable ability to gain cooperation from past enemies, President Bush has not only helped us to have a chance at achieving the goal of dismantling as many terrorist networks as is humanly possible, but he has paved a road of hopeful alliance with borderline countries, increasing our own militarys security thru use of their intelligence networks and FORCED THE WORLD TO TAKE A STANCE.....

YOU ARE EITHER WITH US< OR YOU ARE WITH THE TERRORISTS

President Bush has provided these nations a valid way to help, elevated the muslim religion by pointing out that his war is NOT against Muslims but against radical, freaky terrorists who USE the Muslim religion, corrupt it and hope to gain friends by calling this a holy war.

This goofy 'holy war' mantra bin laden is trying to publicize as the basis for his cowardly actions, the stuff of war, is not flying with those who have access to information. About everyone knows this is not Christains and Jews against Muslims. Bin laden hopes that by using the words 'crusade by Americans', that most will see this as religious to the core. What an idiot.

Bin laden never, ever, realized what he was up against in President Bush and his administration. He thought he would be playing with scared, reactionary kids that so made up the clinton administration. Oooops! Hardly.

Laden goofed big time. To garner support Bush is putting a wall between the cowards, the terrorists, and the world. He is circling the wagons, so to speak, in good ol cowboy fashion.

This is smart. Savvy. Just. Honorable. Because terrorism is everybody's enemy. President Bush helped the planet draw together on this issue. Poor bin laden, no where to run, no where to hide. And that goes for the other terrorist networks as well.

Because Bush forged immediate, eyeball to eyeball, intense communications with the Russian leader and other leaders in Europe-much of this cooperation has been quick in coming.

This author shows great immaturity in being unable to separate out what is GOOD and IMPORTANT. His impatience and suspicion (that this is only about bin laden, is unfounded and rather silly. I feel for this author. His shallowness is pathetic. And I am surprised at Business Week for publishing this tripe.

Maybe we should bomb an aspirin factory or two to keep the media satisfied, it worked before, no reason it shouldn't work again.

Bush is taking his time that way when he does strike the american people and the media won't be able to say he rushed head long into a fight. That's the only way we can win this war. The only thing I am not crazy about is lifting sanctions. But unlike our former "President in Heat" Bush is not worried about his legacy and covering up anything. He has a clear head and a good team behind him.