Multi-Million Dollar Question: What is the best and practical and realistic way to defeat the beast?

Wrong question. Islamicism barely existed before the US started arming the Mujahideen in the 1980s as part of the Warrrr on Commernism. And where it did exist, it had more to do with Oil Sheikhs flexing their political muscles than with any serious attempt to convert the West.

Islamic terrorism barely exists now. The background level threat in real terms in the West is no worse than it has been from other terrorist groups of the last fifty years or so. Iraq isn't suffering from Islamic terrorism so much as local tribalism - which is something very different.

Only someone clinically delusional could seriously believe that Iraq's Sunnis and Shias are at all likely to start attacking each other on the streets of Washington. But still - the US seems obsessed with this ridiculous confrontational narrative in which the West, and especially effete old Europe, is in imminent danger of being over-run by Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

I think this has less to do real Islamicists, and more to do with the fact that the US is charging headlong into economic and cultural decadence and needs a misdirection and a scapegoat to persuade itself that it's still a mighty and colossal military superpower.

Hence these massively assymetrical wars against countries which really shouldn't stand a chance against the US - but against which it still manages to lose, as often as not.

There's some kind of deep masochistic need to be punished and hated twitching around in the soul of the US at the moment. Secretly, Bush and the NeoCons may well realise they're bad, bad people. So they seem to be trying to get away with as much as they can before Mother comes along and spanks them.

(Or maybe not. But as explanations go, this makes as much sense as any other that I've seen.)

But anyway. The US has plenty of real challenges to deal with which don't require a fake Warrrr on scary brown people. If the leadership wasn't drifting along in a doomed and rudderless Zeppelin of political irrelevance, it would be tackling real issues - sustainable energy, sustainable and fair economic policy, sustainable health care - instead of fantasising about the threat from invading barbarian hordes.

With a professional Executive, the pre-9/11 security services were mostly capable of dealing with those invading barbarian hordes.

If the hordes succeeded on 9/11, it wasn't because of some astonishing new fundamentalist virulence. It was because Bush completely fucked up.

The US might want to deal with that reality before it starts trying to eliminate Islamic support from the rest of the planet. Who knows - it might even accidentally end up starving the beast if it goes down that parh.

Regrettably, Fischer shows himself to be too much of a 'Realo' here, to the extent of being unreal. (The establishment got the worse out of him.) First, the negative sides of US foreign policy very well served as frustation and inspiration for the attackers and Bin Laden himself. (To deny that seems motivated by fear that acknowledging this would amount to the justification of the attacks, which is based on a rather naive and irrational view of the relationship of morals and rationality.) Second, other parts of US (and US-supported Israeli) foreign policy actively helped the rise of Islamic terrorists, like the Pakistan policy, the support for the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, or the support of the rise of Hamas and Islamic Jihad to weaken the PLO during the First Intifadah. Third, half a century of US foreign policy of supporting dictatoral regimes and helping organise clampdowns on democratic movements helped ensure the very reason Fischer names, the lack of modernisation. Fourth, the worse forms of oth Khomeinist and Wahhabi Islamic fundamentalism don't simply consitute a lack of modernisation, but a reversal of existing modernisation, and not just that of the last one century.

Applebaum:

If "war on terrorism" has become an unpopular term, then call it something else. Call it a "war on fanaticism".

Which makes about as much sense.

Or - as we used to say in the Cold War - call it a "struggle for hearts and minds"

Which it isn't. It is a war, which involves shooting across hearts and blow up brains that hold minds.

Joerg in Berlin: what is often ignored is that American and European intelligence and law enforcement agencies have increased their cooperation significantly and successfully.

This is something to point out to many Americans; on the other hand, we Europeans should notice that that cooperation also included assisting to the illegal kidnap and outsourced torture of susspects, and the introducion of a number of security laws suspending basic rights like arrest without trial, neither of which I'd call either successful or morally right.

Doyle McManus in LA Times:

On longer-term strategic issues, they warn, the U.S. may have lost ground since 2001:

While McManus says the right things overall, I am annoyed by these over-cautious wordings like "...may have lost ground...". With such spin-down the establishment ensures that it will never grasp the full gravity of the problem, even if (belatedly) getting a sense of it. (McCain would be another example here, recognising that hubris is a direct problem but treating it as a problem of image, not deeds.)

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

Juan Cole (via Milwaukee Journal Sentinel via Informed Comment): Think again: It's wise to challenge some 9-11 assumptions (Sept. 9, 2006)

The attacks on the United States were neither a clash of civilizations nor an unqualified success for al-Qaida. They were, however, a clash of policy that continues to this day.

As al-Qaida struggles to strike again, the United States wrestles with a confused war on terror that won't end until Americans are forced to choose between Medicare and missiles.

'Sept. 11 changed everything.'

No. The massive forces of international trade and globalization were largely unaffected by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. China's emergence as a new economic giant in East Asia continues, with all its economic, diplomatic, and military implications. Decades-old flash points remain.

...

'9-11 was a victory for al-Qaida.'

Only somewhat. The operation was certainly a tour de force of large-scale, theatrical terrorism.

But did it really advance the goals of the organization? As a result of the attacks, al-Qaida lost its bases and its Taliban hosts in Afghanistan. Some al-Qaida strategists had wanted to expand the Taliban's rule from Afghanistan to neighboring countries, including Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and eventually Pakistan.

...

'Small attacks by local cells have replaced 9-11-style operations.'

Probably. Post-9-11 terrorism - from Bali to Madrid to London - has become the province of small, local groups who are emulating al-Qaida but not in direct contact with it. These cells can learn a few tricks on the Internet, and they can certainly inflict pain, but they cannot hope to accomplish much. At most, they can carry bombs onto trains. The economic and social disruption of these operations is limited, which is why al-Qaida itself would not bother with them.

...

'9-11 was a clash of civilizations.'

False. The notion that Muslims hate the West for its way of life is simply wrong, and 9-11 hasn't changed that.

The exhaustive World Values Survey found that more than 90% of respondents in much of the Muslim world endorsed democracy as the best form of government. Polling by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press has found that about half of respondents in countries such as Turkey and Morocco believe that if a Muslim immigrated to the United States, his or her life would be better.

...

'The war on terror has no end.'

That's the plan. The Bush administration has defined the struggle vaguely precisely so that it can't end; President Bush clearly enjoys the prerogatives of being a war president.

So the administration has expanded the goals and targets of this war from one group or geographical area to another. There is an ongoing counterterrorism effort against al-Qaida and, more broadly, the Salafist jihadi strain of Sunni radicalism.

...

'9-11 radically changed U.S. foreign policy.'

No. American policy has changed only at the margins. The attacks temporarily removed constraints on U.S. political elites, allowing them to pursue their policies more aggressively.

As we now know, Bush and his advisors wanted to undermine Hussein's regime well before Sept. 11. Absent the attacks, the administration might have employed a limited bombing campaign, a covert operation or a coup attempt. The attacks suddenly made a years-long land war in the Middle East politically palatable.

...

'The next 9-11 will be even worse.'

It's anyone's guess. Al-Qaida's efforts to acquire nuclear material have been amateurish. In 2002, U.S. agents in Afghanistan seized canisters from Taliban and al-Qaida compounds, only to discover that al-Qaida operatives had likely been duped into purchasing phony nuclear materials.

...

One this is certain, though, whether or not "the next 9-11 will be even worse", the political reaction of the US will be even worse.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

The suspects in the failed train bombing in Germany mentioned the Mohammed cartoons as their (main) motivation.

The 9/11 pilots lived in Europe for several years...

The London bombers had some issues with the British.

etc. etc

Ergo:

1. Terrorism is not just a threat for the US, but for Europe as well, but you don't discuss that.
   
2. Terrorism is also motivated by what is taking place in Europe. The US might be doing a better of job of integrating immigrants.

How do we decrease the number of terrorist recruits and their supporters and the motivation and ideology to engage in terrorism?

How's the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership doing? How to reinvigorate it?