Ben Bateman writes on conflict in general and points out that peace isn't the natural state of humanity. There are always people willing to commit violence to get what they want, just like we see in Iraq, and the only reason they aren't seen more commonly in America is that they realize they can't win. The fighting in Iraq, likewise, will end when the terrorists realize they can't win. Media outlets and politicians that advocate American surrender and claim we're losing give the terrorists the impression they they can win and are winning, and thereby do in fact aid and abet the terrorist cause.
Talking about “resolving conflicts” implies that conflicts just sort of happen, like the weather. On this view, the world is normally at peace, and then these tensions arise inexplicably, so we should try to soothe the tension and return the world to its usual peaceful state.
I see it very differently. In a world of infinite desires and finite resources, people are always in conflict. Everyone wants more: more power, more wealth, more affection, more fame, more whatever. Each of us would like to receive as much as possible while giving as little as possible, so conflict is eternal and ubiquitous. ...
I want to pay less money, the shopkeeper wants to receive more, and so we haggle. Each congressman wants more money for his state or district and less for everyone else’s, and so we have the many complex deals at the heart of American politics. Each country wants to be more powerful, rich, and influential than the others, so they struggle against each other in various ways. And within each country there are out-of-power parties that yearn to rule; they scheme constantly against the dominant party or coalition.
There won't be peace until the terrorists realize they can't win. The media and the opposition politicians could be playing a constructive role and helping America, if they chose to.