By William Markiewicz
Let's get serious; terror was never the primary issue. The primary issue is conquest and terror is the inevitable price for it like atmospheric pollution is the price of industry and communication.
Public opinion has never played an important role, even in democracy. Public opinion is important during elections, meaning not too often. So, election periods may be a headache for the imperialists but they rely on their clever PR agents and the stupidity of political animals to get them out of it.
Terror joins tragedies like traffic accidents, mine explosions, etc. It is sharp, painful, a short burst at unpredictable times and places. The public becomes accustomed to living with terror as with tornadoes and earthquakes.
The "allies," "partners against the rogue states and terror" are suckers, janissaries fighting for some bonus. Usually the general population of "the coalition" countries gets nothing but risk. So, the partners in the coalition will always be shaky allies but the imperialists can live with it.
Like all polluters, the neocolonial powers hope to somehow eradicate the pollution they generate, meaning terrorism. They may use more radical concepts like switching the term 'terrorist organization' to 'terrorist nation' and, logically, to more radical methods of elimination. In the time of the conquest of the Americas, the 'terrorists' were called "savages." "Terrorist nations" are more sophisticated and therefore harder to eliminate than the 'savages,' but as they are geographically distant, it will be relatively easy to isolate them even more and make them "terra incognita", sort of mega-Guantanamos.
The old colonialism has disappeared because it was too expensive; it was cheaper to buy spices from India than to grab them and spend on armies and prisons. The neocons already face the same problem. It's much cheaper to buy oil than to conquer it. The most logical solution would be to leave and even more logical, never to start the adventure. But, it's too late for logic.