While the US maintained its aggressive military attitude of annihilating the evil forces anywhere in the world, Blair sought understanding on the basic motivation of the terrorists, which makes them sacrifice their lives for some deep, dedicated cause. His approach to the dilemmas of the large Muslim community in UK was also more diplomatic.

The US appears to be ignoring the psychological approach and analysis. Bush is looking at the fighters only, ignoring the stark reality that more than a billion citizens of the world might be more sympathetic towards reducing the huge communication gap between the North and the South.

Religion appears to be a side issue, based on the current camps of the active players. Economic disparity and exploitation could be one of the basic reasons. Frontal direct actions may not make the entrenched situation to go away. It is much deeper, layer upon layer of discontent and exploitation for centuries.

As for the millions of Muslims, Islam ruled a large part of the world for centuries, and today this community forms the second largest ethnic group in the globe (how to contain the Islamic surge). The Muslim-majority nations hold a large percentage of the world's natural energy resources. Would the US have bothered to invade Iraq without oil reserves? Some oil-rich Middle East monarchies have cornered themselves, and find it difficult to create elbow space to embark on the freedom of choice. The critical question before the Islamic world is to create internal unity. This has to come, for eventual survival. Today disunity is calling for moral punishment.

It is not terrorism (the medium); it is the basic question of decent and honorable survival (the message). Blair and EU have roles to ploy. How to guess the timing?