Brian Becker has implied that the U.S. response to 9/11 was unjust and has framed the entire conflict from September 11th on in within a heavily distorted ideological paradigm, to his own discredit and that of his organization. Unfortunately this paradigm seems to be somewhat widely shared within the anti-war movement; unfortunate because it serves as a blinder to harsh realities. This is also tragic and ironic because though it is cynically intended to radicalize, it can only do so by lulling people into voluntarily disabling their critical thinking processes and operating based almost entirely on emotion to the tune of the propagandist, with minimal lines of feeble logic included in order to help mask the cynicism. So although it accomplishes the objective of radicalization, it inversely and proportionally eliminates independent and critical thought, which is to one degree or another essential to an effective movement. Strategy, among other things, is a farce without it. It is not surprising in light of this to observe such a conspicuous absence of it throughout much of the movement.

What should have been the response to the 9/11 attacks? Given that (1) Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks; (2) its base of operations was in Afghanistan; (3) it would not have been possible to arrest the leadership of the organization or achieve their extradition due to the hostile political-military environment; (4) it's ideology is expansionist and permits any and all means to achieve its goals; the logical conclusion is that the only rational response was a military one.

(Certainly there is an argument to be made against the wisdom or utility of expanding and prolonging the conflict through use of a large-scale conventional military presence, which is not a very precise tool, but again, the subject in question here was what should have been the immediate response to the September 11th attacks.)