This is what it has been about since the beginning, btw. After Sept 11, a large-scale attack on US soil against civilians, the approach to dealing with terrorism completely changed based on the Bush Doctrine. As GWB articulated from the beginning, this war would not just be against the terrorist organizations themselves but also against the countries that enable them to conduct such large-scale operations. This last point is crucial. Previously, we would attempt, via diplomacy and precision missles, to hit terrorist cells as we found them. The primary focus was al-Qaida, and this was about the only organization against which military force would be used. Now, the war has escalated against all terrorist organizations, regardless of whether they are currently capable of hitting the USA or not. It is a war that will bring US force to the effort to make this happen. Why? The underlying logic is that the USA is no longer going to wait for any terrorist organzation to be able to conduct a major attack. While this isn't about Israel directly, the net effect is that Israel will not have to go it alone in the region anymore. The primary goal is to cut the knees of any and all terrorist organizations before one figures out how to deliver a WMD of any type against Israel or maybe even the USA. The philosophy is the terrorists, based on their religious views, had raised the stakes to this point, and the USA was going to win the game before the stakes got any higher. Iraq and Afghanistan were simply step one, and it is an important step. From this foundation, the USA can put enormous pressure on terrorist organizations from Islamic Jihad to Hamas, and of course, al-Qaida. The countries impacted by the US forces (though not yet fighting US forces) are Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Morocco, Libya, and other governments believed to support terrorism in one fashion or another. So, you kick out dictators in a couple of places, and democracy emerges, maybe slowly at first. Over time, the people of these countries will not allow state-sponsored terrorism. That is the very short version of how this is expected to work. Some people still believe we should only focus on the terrorist organizations that can do damage to the USA right now. Both in intent and in capability, that is al-Qaida. One could argue that you do not need to remove dictators to eliminate al-Qaida; all we need to do is bomb them whenever and whereever we find them. I can understand this view, and it has merit on one level. However, I reject it. Despite the risks of the more aggressive strategy, I think the USA, Israel, and other primary targets of terrorists are at that seminal moment in history where the one-off battles must stop, where a global war against the terrorists must be fought to eliminate a far worse catastrophe in the upcoming decade or two. The time to try to go about picking off terrorist cells one by one is over. To really eradicate their capabilities, the governments who make it possible must go. Sure, this will allow for short-term recruiting gains for terrorists. However, terrorists do not win by the size of their armies -- being bigger only makes them an easier target. Terrorists win by improving their attack capabilities, the damage their weapons can do, and by staying hidden, along with their cash, in places none of the terrorist hunters is allowed to venture. The time for playing cat-and-mouse with such an enemy has passed. If we lose our resolve and walk away (again), then we also lose the war forever. I know it isn't easy to support something so risky. Remember, however, that Sept 11 is not the worst these guys can do, not by a long shot. The true risk is harder to see -- letting the terrorists' hidden networks to survive. This is the ultimate risk, and it is one I think we should never accept.