I think one huge problem is that they had two problems/statements that were opposing each other that weren't neccessarily the only choices.

I agree that a both or neither option would be better. Also may be why centrists are difficult to identify.

But I almost always get frustrated with these types of tests, because they almost never have the answers I want.

But back to the question i originally posed. Could you explain the manner in which one fights terrorism with "overwhelming force"?

No, sir. Three squares a day, sir.

Can you point me to the chapter about the mess hall? What, you've never had a meal?!

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Petraeus' book, as it were, is about counter-insurgency, not counter-terrorism. Aside from perhaps the Brits in Northern Ireland, I'm not sure we have any great examples.

Huh?

Where does that come from?
Is that what we have been doing? Certainly not in Iraq with Rummy's lean and mean minimalist approach (not that that was a war against terrorism at the start), nor in Afghanistan - where we pretty much decided to let the terrorist leaders survive once they hightailed it into the mountains - nor anywhere else.

Could you point me to the chapter in Gen. Petraeus's book where "overwhelming force" is laid out as the essential strategy against terrorism?

I wish they'd had a selection for eith Both or Neither on some of the questions.

Is there a way to fight terrorists that we haven’t tried that you think might work?

Uh, yeah. Psychological warfare. You rob them of their motivation. In part you do this by getting rid of their pet issues (where you can without undermining your own capabilities).

Look at Laden's manifesto. What are the things he highlighted as offenses? US troops in the middle east and support of Israel.

Well should we have troops in the middle east? Not really. Their only purpose there is to protect our interests and if they are instead radicalizing the populous against us then that mission is self defeating. So pull them out. Not because Osama wants it but because it serves our interests.

Should we be sending Israel, a first world heavily militarized nation, billions of dollars every year? No, not really. They don't need the money as much as many others do, they've acted contrary to our interests frequently, and so long as they are so heavily subsidized they have no reason to scale back their belligerence toward their neighbors. Oh and they consistently refuse to follow the guidelines on the money we give them. So tell them we're phasing out our support for them over five years.

Now will this make Osama happy? No of course not and his happiness is of no concern. What it will do is to make it so the next time he tries to hit up his fellow travelers in Saudia Arabia and Syria for some cash they look around and say "No, thanks, we're just not that mad at the US."

The key is the "man on the (arab) street." We win with him, or we lose. Period. Right now we're losing because we're giving *him* plenty of reasons to be wary and even hateful toward us.

So to sum up, yes there are many tactics that we haven't tried. In fact EVERY tactic except military force hasn't been meaningfully tried. Disengagement is probably our best tactic in the short term until our image recovers a bit.

"Liberal

Who They Are
Most (62%) identify themselves as liberal. Predominantly white (83%), most highly educated group (49% have a college degree or more), and youngest group after Bystanders. Least religious group in typology: 43% report they seldom or never attend religious services; nearly a quarter (22%) are seculars. More than one-third never married (36%). Largest group residing in urban areas (42%) and in the western half the country (34%). Wealthiest Democratic group (41% earn at least $75,000).

Lifestyle Notes
Largest group to have been born (or whose parents were born) outside of the U.S. or Canada (20%). Least likely to report having a gun at home (23%) or attending bible study or prayer group meetings (13%).

Media Use
Liberals are second only to Enterprisers in following news about government and public affairs most of the time (60%). Liberals’ use of the internet to get news is the highest among all groups (37%)."

Which is probably the best fit even though I'm an anarchist.

At the same time, it’s probably true that, “Using overwhelming military force is the best way to defeat terrorism around the world.” Certainly, nothing else seems to work.

Shouldn't you, you know, try them before saying they don't work?

Heh. Maybe they're using it in the Classical sense?

It's looking that way. They claimed to have nine.

I came out as an enterpriser also. Maybe they only have one category. I don't think we would come to blows politically, but I do think we differ on a fair number of issues. Oh well.