cthulu23

This is less how I would do it and more of a politically realistic yet sane aproach to combating terrorism:

The invasion of Afghanistan was a given. Instead of putting a token force there and reserving the rest for action in Iraq, I would concentrate on Afghanistan and actually do something to improve life there (hopefully buying some Arab good will). I would treat "enemy combatants" fairly and in accordance with our own justice system to illustrate that we really do have a equitable system of justice no matter how the lust for revenge may rise up.

Instead of blowing billions in Iraq, I would use the funds guaranteed by 9-11 sentiment to step up international loans and aid to countries that worked with us to combat terrorists in their midsts. I would probably rattle sabers at recalitrant countries a bit, but I would not use terms like "crusade" or "axis of evil" or any other terms that made my leadership seem juvenile and two dimensional.

I would step up border securiy, particulalry at ports where the majority of cargo comes in, and I would also tighten the enforcement of immigration policies such as making sure those with student visas are actually in school, etc. I would not deport aging former pop stars (except maybe Stevie Nicks) nor would I roll back citizens protections from law enforcement abuses. Access to library records would not have helped prevent 9-11 and the American people have the right to know if the police have been serching their house except under the most extreme cases (cases where "sneak and peek" was allowed prior to the Patriot Act).

I could go on and on, but I hope that you get the point.

Edit: I had to comment on this.

So it's either invade Iraq or abandon the Middle East entirely? Where does that idea come from? And since when did anti-Iraq war sentiment become "isolationist?" The fight WAS brought to our doorstep and for some reason we spent the majority of our military might and all of our political capital on a country that had nothing to do with it.