Who would have thought that Al Qaida actually has everything from salaried positions, to vacation policies and company healthcare? Apparently, Al Qaida actually has an internal structure that is more like a modern, multi-national corporation than the organized terrorist groups of yesteryear. Isn't globalization great? Even the jihadis are learning how to participate in the global economy!
The most intriguing aspect of this discovery is that it proves that the best way to take down Al Qaida is not the restriction of fundamental liberties in the United States (I could have told ya that one!), but rather a global financial war. They can be undermined by making it simply not economically worthwhile for their people to continue to work for them. Money is a powerful motivator and will probably be what undoes them.
The reason why it is so important to destroy them financially is that it would isolate many of the married men from their base of supporters. Married men have wives and children to support, and they would face tremendous pressure to support their wives and kids rather than fight the infidels. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine some of the wives' fathers killing them for abandoning their wives and kids to starvation. Unmarried men might be more likely to be willing to commit a suicide bombing, but they have less attachment to this world than married men, which might make Al Qaida harder to organize and maintain as a fighting force.
All of this is speculation, but a younger, more hot-headed Al Qaida would be less of a threat than an Al Qaida composed of older, more cool-headed married men.
I would also submit that our 'fundamental liberties' here in the US haven't been curtailed in any noticeably significant way, unless you consider the ability to call Al Qaida a 'civil right.' :)
There are some points to this argument, and we certainly are cutting of terrorists' funding every chance we get. But to say that we can win the war by simply not making it economically worthwhile for the Jihadists to wage it assumes 1) money is what drives the Jihad and 2) that these are rational people who will do C when A and B are applied.
Religious fanatacism is what drives the Jihad, and people who would blow themselves up in a crowded school area to take out as many infidels as possible and get their 72 virgins probably don't care much about earthly financial profit. Granted, you do need some money to pay for the explosives and to provide for your family after you're gone, but someone who actually believes their God condones this type of behavior probably will be selling his camel on Ebay before eliminating this course of action for financial reasons.
#2, These people are technically crazy, (yes, if you blow up innocent people because you think your God told you to, you are insane), and not as likely to conform to predictable logical norms. You and I might quit our jobs when our salaries got decreased, but to the terrorist, a lack of money is just Allah's way of saying "work smarter, not harder."
Actually, what I was suggesting was that we'd put enough pressure on them to make at least waiver. The would end up having to face reality a little bit more and we would end up appealing to some of their paternal/spousal instincts. It's the closest thing we can get to in terms of demoralizing them. As for winning the war, I don't think we ever will as long as Islam itself exists. Islam is an expansionist religion and these people are not radicals, but traditional followers of Islam. All you need to do is look at the history of Europe, India and Northern Africa to see proof that Islam is inherently violent and expanionist by the sword.
I do think that we have lost quite a lot of freedom since 9-11. The President has declared that he has the right to throw out the fourth amendment at his discression, same with the fifth and sixth amendments. Precedent matters, and is what determines the constraints that will go on future presidential actions. One day, the Bush precedents will be cited by a president to lock up such pesky "domestic terrorists" as abortion, gun rights and immigration protestors. If the law can be interpretted in a way that allows it, the politicians and the government can do it. Technicalities are very real dangers and all of those police powers used to fight terrorism are already starting to get used against regular criminals.
Of course, as long as you trust sweeping power to mere humans, you will have this problem. I've met almost no Bush supporters that can understand that point.