"War" vs. "law enforcement": how history will judge anti-terror approaches

I have been contemplating the War on Terror recently, from the perspective of an observer twelve or twenty years from now, after the broader war against al Qaeda and Islamofascists of every stripe has presumably been won. What would one looking back from that standpoint think was the more successful approach to combating terror? The "War on Terror" approach, targeting state sponsors of terror by military means, as espoused by the Coalition of the Willing? Or what I call the "law enforcement" option, targeting specific individuals and groups with police-type action that has limited objectives, as our friends in western continental Europe say is sufficient for the task?

I believe that an observer from a semi-distant future will say that prosecuting a war against state sponsors of terror may have been necessary at one point, but it was law enforcement-style action that eventually carried the day. This will occur, not because the war on terror will fail, but rather because that it will succeed so completely that all that will be left is police actions.

The number of targets for theater-level military action is rapidly diminishing. The traditional suspects - Iran, North Korea, and Syria - top the list, but few others want to be found in their company. The war on terror is accomplishing it's main objective, which is deterring state sponsors of terrorism. Few other powers may rise to the same level - while many Islamic rebel groups have incorporated al Qaeda methodologies into their tactics, such as Abu Sayyaf in the Phillippines and the Malay insurgency in Thailand, the only one of these that stands a strong shot at gaining nation-state power is Abu Sayyaf, opposed only by the rubble that used to be civil society in the Phillippines.

As we see the number of potential targets for action that occupy a specific geographical territory diminish, we will see the U.S. engaging in more of the type of police action that characterizes the persecution of underground terror cells that operate without the backing of nation-states. The greater U.S. focus on these ventures will be highlighted, and those who publically draw an inappropriate conclusion - that this is what was necessary all along, that military action against renegade regimes was a historical aberration and tactical blunder - will increase. Former Bush administration officials will be seen on Sunday talking-head venues defending the appropriateness of the War on Terror for it's time.

After September 11th, the United States as a nation said that "we shall never forget." As part of that promise, we must keep in our minds the need to make a stand, at this time and in this place. I hope that my daughter looks at me, a dozen years from now, and asks why we needed to wage war on terror when now the remaining terrorists are in detention facilities or on the run from the police. That is what our victory in the war will win for us.