Schroeder,
For an alternative - feel free to read the foreign policy discussion in the following thread:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=147353
Its a couple of pages in when it starts I believe. Effective, safe and cheap. VERY few US casualties and eradication of the problem.
Now - KapitanPhillips and Antikristuseke - you both seem to want to ignore the reality. How many times has "diplomacy" been tried with terrorists and been successful long term? Both of you totally ignored the WHY diplomacy wont work in my post above.
I am for diplomacy - coming to a reasonable agreement between reasonable people or countries or groups is a wonderful thing - and should be encouraged. However, when you make an agreement - BOTH sides should respect and live up to the terms stipulated, and to date there has not been one single instance where terrorists have done so, for any length of time longer than they needed to rearm and prepare to renew the conflict.
How quickly people forget their history. The name Cordell Hull ring a bell with you? He was negotiating with Japan when their bombs were falling on Pearl Harbor. A fanatical control structure in Japan, and a nutcase in Europe, caused us to be in world war 2. How many times did Hitler make an agreement and then break it? Its one thing to be diplomatic - its another to close your eyes to reality and think that if you hope long enough, the bad things will go away.
Sooner or later, history shows that those who cannot be trusted to live up to their agreements - must be dealt with in a very.... FINAL ... manner.