> I don't agree with standing militaries The libertarian in me doesn't either. The realist in me isn't sure we can just stand them down in our current world.

> I don't agree with standing militaries The libertarian in me doesn't either. The realist in me isn't sure we can just stand them down in our current world. > I also don't agree with most border controls The libertarian in me would agree with this too, but only in the libertarian version of the US where we don't have a welfare state (which, historically, was the condition under which all previous immigrants to the US came here). You appear to have a similar view. > I'm of the opinion that terrorism can't be defeated through primarily military means. I don't think this is true. What is true that, to defeat terrorism militarily, you have to be willing to let your military do whatever is necessary to accomplish that mission, rather than hamstringing it with completely unrealistic rules of engagement. The French, for example, had no trouble defeating terrorism in Algeria militarily. They did it by, for example, not caring about how much civilian collateral damage was caused when the terrorists used civilians as human shields. The obstacles to, for example, doing in Afghanistan what the French did in Algeria are political, not military. > Terrorism is a form of psychological warfare against a population, you defeat that by not allowing one-off attacks to stoke fear and drive to over reactions. Yes, and also by convincing the population, most of whom are not terrorists, that the terrorists are going to lose. If your military gets excoriated in the press every time a civilian is killed as collateral damage, then not just the terrorists, but the civilian population in their country, will understand that the terrorists are not going to lose--because you don't have the political will to defeat them.