Very cogent Outstanding takedown by a Slate poster of the people who want to investigate only some of the "root causes". It's in response to Michael Kinsley's piece on evil, but you should be able to pick up the argument from here alone:

I would have had no disagreement with Michael Kinsley had he confined himself to pointing out that describing terrorists, or Saddam Hussein, or anyone else as "evil" does not by itself suffice as a justification for American policy. Along the lines of protecting American lives and defending American interests are plenty of good reasons for specific policies without getting into questions of human nature. But this isn't intellectual-sounding enough for Kinsley, and moreover would require him to advance some positive ideas instead of the ineffectual carping he has gotten used to. He offers instead two entirely bogus examples of the things conservatives cannot talk about, these being "subjective" and "objective" root causes of terrorism. Discussing the first of these leads to the supposedly forbidden field of psychology, except that by this Kinsley plainly has in mind only therapeutic psychology -- the idea behind this being that if we only understand terrorists motives we can find some peaceful and sympathetic means to persuade them to stop being terrorists. So, too, "objective" root causes for Kinsley boil down to things America can be blamed for. Suppose we actually discuss these things in their broadest context. Say, for example, we consider among subjective root causes the idea that young Saudi or Egyptian males raised to put a low value on the lives of non-Muslims and to see killing themselves as religiously significant as long as they also kill someone else are rather more likely than other people to want to fly planes into buildings. Or, what about the idea that Western economies and to a lesser extent Western popular culture dominate a modern world in which Arab Muslims find it difficult to fit either their religion or their political habits, and some of them choose to indulge hatred against Westerners and especially Americans rather than accept responsibility for their own shortcomings. You won't find too many conservatives unwilling to discuss either of these possibilities, though a few philistines like William Bennett may insist that murdering large numbers of people is just wrong and evil and incompatible with civilization as understood by anyone (what a killjoy that guy is). For Mike Kinsley and perhaps a few other people, though discussing these ideas is beyond the pale -- it smacks of insensitivity, even racism, as well as the unsophistication of blaming terrorism mostly on the terrorists. I would find this less odd if I thought Kinsley's opinion of extreme Islamism or the more backward elements of Arab Muslim culture was any higher than William Bennett's. It almost certainly is not. It may not be as high. Whatever it is, he may not speak it aloud as long as there are domestic conservatives to accuse of philistinism, unsophistication and -- most damningly -- of not being very nice.

Really, this is the main point. Warbloggers (not all of whom are conservative) are interested in the root causes of terrorism. The difference between them and the doves is that the warbloggers think that some of the root causes can be ameliorated only by the use of force.