Comments on "The (Probably) Right Answer to Terrorism"

Sebastion Mallaby's Column in the October 18th Washignton Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40842-2004Oct17.html

included the following paragraphs:

"Beyond these questions lies a bigger issue: a doubt not just about Iraq but about the entire war on terrorism. Perhaps this "war" should not be thought of as a war at all: Perhaps conceiving of it in military terms condemns us to lose it. If we behave like a new empire, we will alienate the people whose cooperation we need. So we better secure the homeland, hone our intelligence services and return to the law enforcement approach to terrorism that we pursued before Sept. 11; and we better not compromise values such as openness and tolerance and fairness. The battle against terrorism is really a battle of ideas. Our values are our sharpest weapons.

I understand this argument. I grew up mainly in Britain, where the rule in responding to the terrorism of the Irish Republican Army was not to respond excessively. When Margaret Thatcher's hotel was blown to smithereens in 1984, she did not disappear onto an air force jet, as George Bush did on Sept. 11. Instead, she appeared before the television cameras in her earrings: "Life must go on," she declared defiantly. There was pressure from the right wing of her party to respond to force with force. But Thatcher determined that the most forceful response of all would be business as usual.

Is that the right answer now? I support the Iraq war because I doubt it. The fanaticism of suicide-ready terrorists, coupled with the proliferation of horrible weapons, causes the analogy with European terrorism to break down: The threat we confront is on a different scale, and the response needs to be different. If we were faced with the prospect of a few hotel bombings, we could afford to be restrained: We could put values such as freedom before physical security. But today we face the possibility that someone wants to nuke New York. I am not willing to rely on the Statue of Liberty for protection."


Tell me -- how is it feasible to wage war on a tactic??

To wage war we need to be able to identify the enemy, and go after them where they are based. How before they act, do we go about identifying a terrorist?? Last time I looked we were not capable of reading peoples' minds and identifying likely threats with any degree of accuracy --- witness Sadaam and his WMD's.

If we seriously pursue the War on Terror we are doomed to lose everything we care about --- even our own values --- witness Abu Ghraib.

The War on Terror is in no way making us safer.

Nuclear material -- if there ever was any -- not to mention Saddam's extensive stockpiles of conventional weapons were able to escape Iraq to only God knows where as a direct result of the chaos and fog of the War on Terror as waged in Iraq.

We have not successfully captured and prosecuted anyone (other than John Michael Lindh and a couple of soldiers involved in Abu Ghraib) since we began the War, though eventually, we may end up with a successful prosecution of Saddam. -- But how has any of this made us safer??

Yes, we have killed terrorists, but in the process we have become Al Qaeda's biggest recruiting tool. Potential terrorists are without number. More are born each day (both literally and figuratively).

We need to face our vulnerability and come to terms with it.

We are not safe, in fact no one is safe, from the possiblity of nuclear attack, or some other form of attack.

This is the human condition.

It was true before 9/11 and remains true after 9/11.

Human life is fragile.

America, humankind and human civilization, though substantially more robust than any single human life, are vulnerable. (These facts were emotionally present to some of us prior to 9/11. If 9/11 was your emotional wake-up call to these facts --- seek help. Please don't mascarade them as rational arugments for the War on Terror.)

The War on Terror is a dangerous detour that plays directly into the hands of the terrorists. Our world is not black and white, or even shades of gray, it's full of color.

An effective response to terrorism will reframe the situation in such a way that all but the most colorblind, are drawn away from the terrorist's view.

By insisting on the "War on Terror", we are simply feeding the mindset of the terrorists and asking the world to choose sides. We need a Reframe --- not a War. (I suggest a medical metaphor -- Terrorism as a global illness.)

I am deeply disappointed in Tony Blair. His speech in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 gave me hope that maybe something new and good could come out of 9/11, but instead he hooked up with Bush -- who is effectively blind, deaf, dumb, and lame with respect to appropriate leadership and effective policies in every area.

May God have mercy on us, if we reelect him in November. We really will need the blind to see, the deaf to hear, the dumb to become capable of speech, and the lame to walk.