"The question is this; are the terrorist strikes going to be primarily against US interests overseas (embassy bombings and attacks against US companies overseas), or against targets in the US itself (9/11)? The next question is what is the best method for preventing/reducing these attacks? Do we continue on aggressive overseas adventures that will continue to recruit new jihadists, but occupy them so they are less likely to strike elsewhere; do we switch to an international law enforcement model, or other?"

1. US Targets overseas are the most cost effective for our enemies.

2. Target hardening & human collection within the AO would be my recommendation to reduce/prevent, or at the very least predict/disrupt/delay.

3. Must feel that the International Law Enforcement model is most likely.

4. This process is, of course, in the process of ending itself as it has been.

5. Less likely but possible is a treaty or unilateral cease-fire, some type of "Viet-namisation" or Declaration of Victory, in advance of withdrawals on all fronts.

New administration efforts toward a type of detente, i.e. mentioning "Muslims" in inaugural address, the first executive interview, letter to Pres. Ahmadinejead, greater engagement diplomatically, may serve to de-escalate in certain regards.

I will not comment on my perceived long term effects of such activities, as I think they speak for themselves.

I wonder if your analysis takes into account the lurking variable of Israeli involvement in these "zones of influence", to use a rather out-dated phraseology.

I understand and respect your advocation against the never-endingness of certain adventurism.

Perhaps the collective wisdom of certain of the professionals here would also be willing to address my "Israel variable" if you will, in this equation.

Do you agree that there is some degree of correlation ?