What should be the response to a *severe* terroristic strike?

Remove all ads!

"Koma to amok"? What a great anagram! I'll have to remember that one.

There is ALWAYS a state solution. States crack down on the people in their territory. States regulate the banks that terrorists use to launder their cash. States monitor crossborder traffic. States decide the laws which govern, or make illegal, non-state actors.

If the state is recalcitrant, pressure it. If the state refuses, replace it. If the state is stronger than you, surrender to it. (Wasn't this Pakistan's strategy vis-a-vis freedom fighters in Kashmir, or Palestine's vis-a-vis Israel?) Terrorism requires a law-enforcement solution, by first making sure the law-enforcing state is on your side.

If a terrorist wants to kill just one person, they can do that by themselves - there's no state in the world that can stop all muggings, much less petty terrorist strikes. But if a terrorist wants to kill a thousand, that requires a huge support structure - specialized equipment, identification papers, targeting maps, police monitors, lots of cash to subsidize the operation, and tight internal discipline to keep the secret from leaking out. The bigger the target, the more the complexity, and the more ways for the state to stamp down.

The "absymal failure" succeeded for a quarter of a century. That ain't bad considering the free world's long-term energies were focused on containing the Soviet Union. It also ain't bad considering that we didn't a) firebomb the place or b) recolonize it or c) hand it to the British/Iraqis/French/etc. Yeah, it destabilized the region...eventually...but the mistake wasn't the original shah-restoration, but that we didn't counter the shah's fall with another short-term solution. If twenty-five years from now Afghanistan crumbles into chaos, would it really be right to call the anti-Taliban campaign an "abysmal failure"?

Bombing feels lousy - look at how the pricey Iraq campaign is draining money and prestige that Bush could be investing in his pet domestic priorities. And yes, bombing is often (if not usually) unproductive. But sometimes it's all that works. Like:

Yeah, it's been a complicated five years, and who knows what is really going on in the Libyan psyche. But Libya has been public with only three of its reconciliation motivations - economic growth once US/UN sanctions are lifted, pique with the other Arab countries, and fear of the US and UK. Money, pride, and fear - boo-yah indeed!

 

Bush and those who follow him have little use in spending on "domestic priorities." The campaign has helped him greatly with those who have little regard for such priorities anyway. His problem is that there are a large number who do favor such programs, and that number appears to be growing. The tax cut was the centerpiece of his domestic policy. We can also add the looming crisis over gay marriage also.

In fact, the "war on terror" up till now has been good cover for the weakness of Bush on domestic issues. Now he is talking about going to Mars. While that only points to us that he really has no domestic priorirties, I think it's a good idea that he wants to go to Mars - I hope he leaves soon.

 

Until those people strike back and remove the offending government.

The problem with using short-term solutions in the mid-east is that you're dealing with peoples who have VERY LONG memories.

 

And there goes the self-evident right of peoples to rule themselves. Stabilizing destabilization. To interfere with interna of Iran was right because the goal justifies the means, i.e. containing Russia. And after the Shas fall, who has the right to moan that they don't like occidentals ? Which by the way, they don't do anymore. If further left alone, they won't hold a new grudge. That's for Iran.