The attacks in Mumbai raise the question, what should be done to better deal with this sort of activity? The US advocates direct confrontation by military means, but this hasn't proved very effective. Military confrontation has limited success because terrorists are more mobile and the ones focused on have found shelter in remote inaccesible locations under disputed jurisdiction. These conditions will not be overcome in the near future.

Some say the core grievances of terrorists need to be addressed, that they emerge to challenge conditions brought about by US foreign policy which should accomodate some of their demands thereby reducing support for their cause. Can this be done or would it entail an accomodation that would encourage further demands and be read as a justification of terrorism? The terrorist grievances are numerous but the basic ones have to do with Palestinian plight, perceived western decadence and Islamic fundamentalism.

What can US foreign policy do to address such grievances? Should the US advocate a resolution of the Palestinian confrontation of Israel from a more Palestinian perspective? On the issue of perceived western decadence, should wealthy nations promote the development of impoverished Muslim countries to reduce income disparity? I don't think this is the source of the trouble because the terrorists involved are relatively affluent. In most cases they come from poor countries but have relocated to the west where they receive good education, find work and live in comparative affluence vis-a-vis their compatriots back home. I also find lifting the impoverished Muslim world a monumental task beyond current capacities. Islamic fundamentalist motivation is a religious issue that cannot be addressed through foreign policy and will require Muslims develop a more mature perspective of their own faith.

Dealing with terrorism requires actions with immediate effects, this is the best reason to advocate military confrontation. Solutions involving lengthy processes such as accomodating a Palestinian perspective in resolving their confrontation with Israel or mitigating income disparity across the Muslim world, will take decades to bear fruit, and the west doesn't want to wait that long to travel safely in pursuit of globalization. We need an answer that reduces terrorism substantially faster.

I advocate a more focused approach that involves more law enforcement than military effort, but that always has the potential of a full-fledged military attack right behind it. I'd recommend a charter among governments endorsing a clear definition of the targetted terrorists. This definition would target non state-supported individuals acting in coordination to pursue political goals by violent means involving attacks against civilians. These terrorists would be identified as outlaws and precluded from any communication, they'd be the focus of international intelligence and pursued until capture, they could have no bank accounts, passports or own any property. They'd be captured and interrogated, forced to disclose their networks and punished for any acts atributable to them in a conspiracy, they'd serve out their sentences incommunicado. Nations not endorsing this approach would have their ties to the rest of the world curtailed severely and this couldn't be the subject of individual national governments negotiation so that one government's "freedom fighters" would be another's terrorists.