The so called War on Terror could have been over in a year with intelligent policies.
I wouldn't agree with that. I presume you're suggesting that If America had been less isolationist, and if they'd been more even handed in the Middle East conflict that it would have removed the causes of terrorism.
That's only partly true, and even if it was true, America was never going to radically change it's pro-Israel stance in response to 9/11, nor were they going to pull troops out of the Saudi Arabia or anywhere else in the region.
The other reason America couldn't have diffused terrorism is that at least some of it is being carried out by complete nutters with no particular reason for hating America, other than the fact that it symbolises everything they are not.
Of course that's also the very reason why a war on Terror can't be won. Just like the war on Drugs can't be won.
I will say this though. While they may not have been in a position to end terrorism by shifting policy in the direction you would have liked, they were under no obligation to fuel terrorism by shifting policy in the other direction.
That has been the real failure of the Bush Administration. They've thrown gasolene on the fire of terrorism and pretended to the American people that it was water.
30 years after Bloody Sunday we are still wrapped up in investigations and accusations. At least some of the Terrorists in the North got involved directly because of that event.
There have been dozens of Bloody Sunday's in Iraq. Numerous civilians including women and children shot while protesting. In one case troops opened fire on a crowd who were protesting after (possibly untrue) rumours spread about troops using night vision goggles to spy on women.
It was a peaceful protest outside a school.
Forget high minded idealogical arguments about defeating terrorists. Terrorists are created and defeated on the ground in the way that the powerful interact with the powerless. It has always been this way.
-Rd