This was my point above in my comment. War is a good thing for the US.

"The scary part is that this line of thinking is not entirely untrue seeing as civilian casualties have a way of radicalizing young men in search of revenge."

I do not expect to convince you to change your opinion, but I would like to let you know that this is not an opinion well verified by fact. It's a supposition made by chaps like Noam Chomsky without serious data behind it. It is also counter to what we know is true, which is that serious terrorism comes from religiously-motivated intellectuals, not the down-trodden poor incited to revenge.

I believe civilian casualties do have a way of radicalizing young men in search of revenge. Examples can easily be found which show that American men enlisted in response to attacks on our soil.

"One of those young men was William Grigsby, now an Army staff sergeant who enlisted in early 2002. “The events of 9/11 had everything to do with my decision to enlist,” he said." [1]

"It's clear the events of Sept. 11, 2001 played a role in many peoples' decisions to join the military. The Minnesota National Guard is still benefiting from a boost in recruitment a decade later." [2]

[1] http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=65272

[2] http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/09/05/sept...

Don't be a hypocrite. You scold the GP for not having any factual basis, and then proceed to give your own argument without factual basis. Please show some proof, or stop scolding people for not showing proof.

I wouldn't call them intellectuals - more like college students. But I also don't think that applies in the general case, like Al Qaeda in Iraq. Attacks on western soil, like 9/11, it has definitely been stablished has mainly middle to upper-class college educated guys - engineers, dentists, that sort of thing. But in the middle east and south asia I don't think the rank file qualify.