After reading Bruce's article it occurs to me that he is making the same mistake which the CIA made before 9/11 -- that there can be a steady-state condition with terrorism. By steady-state I mean a situation where one can establish a boundary between "them and us" which is capable of being held in balance through policies, agreements or by war.

Although Israel arguably has the most experience in dealing with terrorist infractions they have also found it impossible to maintain a boundary. For the reasons I state below, a boundary is not possible.

The cold-war and MAD worked only because the authority to release nuclear weapons rested with very few individuals. The "game", although on a large scale with the potential for world destruction, was a very small one with very few players. Nash's strategy could thus be fulfilled -- Russia and America both got a brunette and the blond was left out in the cold.

The "game" of terrorism has many more players who act independently of, or in concert with, overlying authority. It is by nature unpredictable, which is, in fact, it's major strength for the terrorist player in the game. There can never be an assured balance (or boundary) because the number of players is too large and their actions too unpredictable.

In this game America can never go back to its time of safety, freedom, liberty, and justice. What Bruce proposes only plays into a strength of the terrorist's game. Trade-offs, negotiations, land transfers, pay-offs, prisoner exchanges can only have one outcome -- failure which adds to the gains made by terrorists.

Unfortunately America still doesn't get it. Their belief in their old cold-war game rules forces them to identify a major player as an opponent. Saddam Hussein, Yassar Arafat, Ariel Sharon can not determine or control how their people will act. Elevating them to the status of an opponent will not buy the safety or peace which they seek.

I'd like to remind everyone that Big Brother has never existed, and never will exist. Yes, we have authorities who watch us and can exceed the guarantees of our liberties. But I urge you to get over it, you're not in the old game any more and trying to remain there will only assure that you'll lose. America can no longer afford to believe it is in a position of relative safety, it is, in fact, in a state of declared war and must act accordingly.

That said, I agree in principal with Bruce's viewpoint. It is people like him, who pay attention to these details, that will be needed to return America to a peaceful society again. I hope that those in authority in America will take notice of him and plan to use his skills for future good.

For the record, I'm just a programmer from Canada with five sons and daughters who understands something about game theory and war games. I am not a war-monging, right-wing, pseudo-Nazi who wants war at any cost.