Regrettably, Fischer shows himself to be too much of a 'Realo' here, to the extent of being unreal. (The establishment got the worse out of him.) First, the negative sides of US foreign policy very well served as frustation and inspiration for the attackers and Bin Laden himself. (To deny that seems motivated by fear that acknowledging this would amount to the justification of the attacks, which is based on a rather naive and irrational view of the relationship of morals and rationality.) Second, other parts of US (and US-supported Israeli) foreign policy actively helped the rise of Islamic terrorists, like the Pakistan policy, the support for the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, or the support of the rise of Hamas and Islamic Jihad to weaken the PLO during the First Intifadah. Third, half a century of US foreign policy of supporting dictatoral regimes and helping organise clampdowns on democratic movements helped ensure the very reason Fischer names, the lack of modernisation. Fourth, the worse forms of oth Khomeinist and Wahhabi Islamic fundamentalism don't simply consitute a lack of modernisation, but a reversal of existing modernisation, and not just that of the last one century.

Applebaum:

If "war on terrorism" has become an unpopular term, then call it something else. Call it a "war on fanaticism".

Which makes about as much sense.

Or - as we used to say in the Cold War - call it a "struggle for hearts and minds"

Which it isn't. It is a war, which involves shooting across hearts and blow up brains that hold minds.

Joerg in Berlin: what is often ignored is that American and European intelligence and law enforcement agencies have increased their cooperation significantly and successfully.

This is something to point out to many Americans; on the other hand, we Europeans should notice that that cooperation also included assisting to the illegal kidnap and outsourced torture of susspects, and the introducion of a number of security laws suspending basic rights like arrest without trial, neither of which I'd call either successful or morally right.

Doyle McManus in LA Times:

On longer-term strategic issues, they warn, the U.S. may have lost ground since 2001:

While McManus says the right things overall, I am annoyed by these over-cautious wordings like "...may have lost ground...". With such spin-down the establishment ensures that it will never grasp the full gravity of the problem, even if (belatedly) getting a sense of it. (McCain would be another example here, recognising that hubris is a direct problem but treating it as a problem of image, not deeds.)

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}