I think you stumbled across something and perhaps didn't realize it. I'm speaking in strictly military terms.

Terrorism, in terms of casualties, has a low gain. The number of people directly affected by acts of terrorism is very minimal. Look at the 9/11 attacks and use the working figure of 3,000 killed out of 300 million Americans; that's .00001 percent: a relatively small spike when you account for the number of Americans killed in car accidents or murdered on our own streets on any given weekend. Look at the casualties in Iraq, and the numbers or American soldiers killed is very low when compared to conventional combat actions; and it's a small spike when you compare the numbers of Iraqis killed and not even a significant figure when you compare those killed as a result of terrorism to those who were killed by Saddam's henchmen during his reign.

However, when you look at the overall psychological effects, then it shouldn't be too difficult to understand how the deaths of 3,000 Americans would affect a significant majority of 300 million Americans or how the deaths of two or three American soldiers here and there would affect the 150,000 American troops still deployed in Iraq. It would be impossible for the terrorists in Iraq to kill every one of the 150,000 troops in Iraq or even 15,000 troops. However, each one of those 150,000 troops understands that there is a risk that he or she may become one of the relatively few killed or maimed by an IED.

It's not a matter of chasing ghosts. Terrorists do exist, Virginia. And they're really out to kill as many Americans in whatever spectacular manner that will advance their cause. Will anyone in this forum become a victim of terrorism? The likelihood is very remote given the number of flights per day, number of passengers, number of various destinations, etc. However, each passenger clearly understands that there may be a remote chance that their particular flight going to a particular destination may have drawn the unlucky short straw.

So where do we draw the line between spending resources to stop something that is statistically remote and accepting the fact that the odds statistically favor the attackers in terms of choosing the time and place for such an attack? Do we bury our heads in the sand as you suggest? Do we flop our arms up in the air and declare it too difficult as you suggest? Do we question the moral integrity of those who undertake these efforts as you suggest in the name of civil liberties?

I'll stick with the doers.