I know how fundamentalism works well having seen it first hand. I never really "fit in" at the time, but it was a very valuable education.
Using force against fundamentalism is counterproductive, because it actually enhances the power of leadership over their "flock". All the major religions emphasize that they will be "persecuted" for their beliefs. When force is appled to a fundamentalist sect, most "believers" become hardened and more determined. In addition, by using weapons of force that also cause destruction on the more moderate around them, like bombing a country to try to kill off a minority threat, that actually also drives people into the arms of fundamentalists.
I understand a lot about this from how it works, but I am not well versed enough to give you sources. But I do know that this phenomenon is well studied.
(Opinion and generalization warning)
The best way to "deradicalize" most people is to give them peace and stability, and the best way to counter fundamentalist ideology is to show them that the alternative works much better. That is why fundamentalism has much more difficulty gaining hold in places of peace and low in authoritarianism, while it tends to increase in areas that are not stable.
Of course there are other ways we could be much more effective. For instance, much of the growth of modern fundamentalist islam came about from **our dollars**. If President Carter had been successful in moving the country away from oil imports Wahabism, which in a large part grew out of tithes from Oil riches, would not have grown to the extent it has.
If I might add: Containment is what Sadaam Husein was all about correct? His country was an example of it. I don't think we all want to be living in such a place?
= new reply since forum marked as read