Two ways of winning the war on terror have been posited:
The President proposed that we 'hold to account' any nation that supports terrorism. Does he mean all of them? That would mean about 30 (at least) Iraqs, stretching into the next century. We might become a nation of warriors something like Sparta.
Clearly there will always be terrorists wherever underpriviliged populations are concentrated. We're talking about violent crime; 95% of American violent crimes come from ghettos (underprivileged populations- large numbers of people with no stake in our education or economy.
It's like that worldwide; one third of the world's population live in such places. That area includes the above mentioned 30 nations. They comprise what has been called the gap, the Barnett gap:
"To be successful the US military must stop thinking of war in the context of war but war in the context of "everything else", i.e. demographics, energy, investment, security, politics, trade, immigration, etc." (quoted from the wikipedia article on The Pentagon's New Map.
The book I got for $2 at a closeout store in GA. the map, worldwide, shows the core (largely the northern hemisphere) where globalization promotes a 'rule set' where conflicts are economic in nature and life is (relatively) good). The gap is the rest, where poverty, oppression, frequent military activity abound.
Barnett's idea seems to be that globalization (and cultural sanity) will progress, but bad actors (on the world scene) must be dealt with by a police force, like they are internally. The scary thing about his idea is that our military must act as the primary police agency.
His book elicited an enormous amount of dissent and hostility, and also considerable approval. I haven't yet decided which side I'll come down on.
The least you can say about Barnett is that his ideas are provocative.