I know that the impulse is to respond militarily, with force and with a mighty vengeance. That’s my first reaction, too. But then I try to cool down and think things through. What would we accomplish? With a massive military assault on a nation or nations, would we wind up creating a whole new generation of simmering resentment, which would only lead to more terrorism down the road? And what of the fact that the nation where the Taliban were schooled (Pakistan) has nuclear capabilities? If we get into a cycle of violence, are we only increasing the risk of one day facing nuclear terrorism?
It would be enormously difficult, and enormously counter-instinctive to turn our cheek as a nation, but should we do it?
I am usually a pacifist and don’t care for Military tatics to resolve differnces but after what I saw yesterday that has changed. Whoever did this deserves a full and mighty retaliation, there is only one thing these people will understand and that is force.
Maybe it is time that democracies struck against those nations who harbour terrorist organizations and protect them.
Something needs to be done, but the question is what. Perhaps if the terrorists are a small group, then a non-military action would suffice. With a larger terrorist network, I’m not sure. But if we do go a military route, then (1) it would definitely need the support &/or cooperation of the majority of other nations in the world; (2) it would need to be clear & decisive, and (3) it would need to be followed up with constant vigilence, increased defenses against terrorism, and increased efforts to eliminate terrorism (and as you allude to, increased efforts to reduce the spread of weapons of mass destruction).
Actually, I think it is clear that (3) is necessary no matter what.
Of course, it is a risk, Spoke, but consider what will happen if we don’t respond:
1.) More terrorists, including our own nut cases, are going to go after this society.
2.) If we don’t avenge those deaths in a sane manner, much of the world will lose what respect it has for us. This will be dangerous to our attempts to promote a stable international order.
3.) Bitter memories will drive Aermicans further to the right. Democatic candidates will be like George W. Bush, the GOP will nominate people who make Pat Buchanan seem sane and Nader will be barbecued at the stake. This country lost the Vietnam War, a contributing factor to why we have had nearly 20 years of right-wing governments (for all of his liberal credentials, Clinton essentially governed as a moderate Republican for his last six years in office).
Appeasement did not work for the Nazis and it will not work for these bozos.
Will retaliating make martyrs for the terrorists’ cause? Draw more people in to fight for the terrorists? Will acts of terrorism continue? Yes. Absolutely. Conceded.
But if we do not retaliate, the terrorist acts will still continue. In these terrorists, we are dealing with people who view every American as the Devil incarnate. The threat of death from U.S. retaliation cannot deter such people from attacking us when the terrorists so clearly demonstrate their willingness to kill themselves just to hurt us. But neither will our lack of retaliation reduce the terrorists’ determination to kill still more of us. The Israelis have seen that absolutely no concession they make will stop the attacks against innocent people.
Since we are faced with people who cannot be deterred from attacking us, whether we retaliate or no, our only recourse is to kill them. I am reasonably confident that dead people will not attack us. When their “martyrdom” attracts others to continue attacking us, we must kill them also. Eventually, if we fight well enough, the terrorists will run out of people to attack us with. Or we will run out of people to defend America.
If we turn the other cheek, we will get slugged in that cheek too, and kicked in the balls for our stupidity. More Americans will die, for certain. We can die like cows at slaughter, or we can die fighting back. I would rather fight back. It is not a good way, but it is the only way we have.
Why do you think so? Do you really think an armed response will be a deterrent to terrorism? Considering that we’re talking about suicide bombers, it’s obvious that fear of death is not much of a consideration for them. If anything, I would think the armed response itself could beget more terrorism. (Terrorists bomb us, we get mad and retaliate. We drop bombs in the Muslim world, Muslims who get bombed get mad at us and become terrorists. Terrorists bomb us…And so on…)
Is the world’s respect for us based solely on our ability to bomb the hell out of people? I would hope that at least some measure of that respect is based upon our national principles. I hope we are truly respected, and not just feared. Kings who rule by fear sleep lightly.
Seems to me that going off half-cocked and taking out innocents along with the guilty would be the sort of thing that might cause us to lose the respect of the international community.
Who said anything about appeasement? Appeasement connotes giving in to demands. I certainly do not advocate changing our policies one whit to please the terrorists. Nor is it helpful to trot out the Nazis in this debate. We’re talking about terrorist thugs here, not dictators with designs on world domination.
I forsee a cycle of violence begetting retribution, begetting more violence, begetting more retribution…etc. Do we really want to wind up like Northern Ireland or Israel?
A measured response is a better response in my view.
Bombing will look good on TV but for results I think more funding of the CIA and pro-democracy movements in those ‘rogue’ states would do more.
Look what 12 men with knives just did, their is no defence against this.
I think Bush is doing the right thing saying ‘if you look after these people then we are going to get you too’.
As said above, I don’t think the threat of retaliation is going to dissuade people prepared to kill themselves and innocent civilians. This kind of act does not, in my opinion, involve a rational weighing up of consequences.
The world respects the US for its adherence to principles of freedom, justice and tolerance, not for it’s ability to kick seven kinds of shit out of other nations or groups. While I would not be surprised at (or even in disagreement with) limited military action, my respect for the US will rely on the degree to which it observes these principles – e.g. acting only when evidence is available and overwhelming.
I understand that others more closely connected with these events may not agree with my desire to be patient.
Sadly, I suspect this may happen regardless. I do not wish to express a partisan opinion other than to say that a move to any political extreme as a result of this may be a bad move in the long term.
Appeasement is giving in to demands. I don’t see anyone advocating that, or advocating doing nothing to bring those responsible to justice.
Spoke:
I think more terrorists will come after us if this go unavenged for the simple reason that success breeeds success. If one group can murder thousands of people and get away unscathed, others, whether domestic or foriegn, will be tempted to do the same. I don’t know that an armed respone will be a deterrent to terrorism, but I do know that bin Laden, or whomever is responsible, won’t participate in any more atrocities if he, she or they is a member of The Choir Invisible.
I think other nations’ respect, in part, is based upon a respect for our armed might. If we are seen as weaklings, our friends will lose trust in us and our enemies will become determined to push the envelope.
“Seems to me that going off half-cocked and taking out innocents along with the guilty would be the sort of thing that might cause us to lose the respect of the international community.”
Please note that I said “avenge those deaths in a sane manner.” I agree with you that indiscriminate bombing of the Moslem world is not the way to go. However, I think the responsible parties should be punished. I also agree with Shrub that any country providing shelter for said parties is complicit in the act. I think retalitation against any countries involved should take the form of bombing against military targets. Let their elite lose expensive bases, planes and tanks, and maybe they’ll think twice about climbing into bed with terrorists.
“We’re talking about terrorist thugs here, not dictators with designs on world domination.” I suggest you read Shirer’s “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.” If the Nazis were not terrorists in the beginning, what were they?
“I forsee a cycle of violence begetting retribution, begetting more violence, begetting more retribution…etc. Do we really want to wind up like Northern Ireland or Israel?” I have a hunch we’re going to end up this way anyway, at least for a few years.
“A measured response is a better response in my view.” What is your definition of a measured response? It is possible we are not that far apart in our positions.
In this case spoke- I don’t think it is an issue. As I mentioned in another thread (that is dying a no response death) there is hardly a country or group in the world that is willing to face-up to this one. Everyone, terrorists and nations alike, can easily see the righteous wrath of America on this one. No matter how much they may despise or disagree with the US they can all understand the stunning imapct of this event and none can really gainsay the US in its quest for justice on this count.
That said I think the cycle could fire-up if the US is indiscriminate in its attacks on the perpetrators of this crime. If the US just starts to bomb willy-nilly then certainly you will see anti-US hatred flare but if we stay more targeted and obliterate a few terrorist training camps I believe most everyone will just let it pass. Certainly there will remain those who wish to continue attacks on the US but I don’t think some targeted response from the US on this count is likely to incite more violence by itself.
I believe we do, it’s never going to be the same, we are living in a time where every action is critical to the future, I really hope we don’t screw this one up, we’re already paying for it.
No, it is not what I intend to do. And the step is s very long one. Advocating killing terrorists is not the same as advocating genocide; terrorists are not a racial or religious group of people. And the vast majority of Arabs or Muslims do not support terrorism. Ergo my call to do our level best to kill terrorists is not at all the same as calling for the genocide of Muslims, Arabs, or any other ethnic/religious group.
Obviously, we should do the best we can to spare the innocent in our fight against terrorists. I’ve spoken out loudly in other threads against the rabid, non-thinking “nuke the bastards” type of poster, and encouraged people to offer their help and support to their Arab-American friends who may be wrongly targeted by racists.
But I absolutely cannot support the idea that we should not fight back against terrorists in the naive hope that they will leave us alone if only we don’t hurt them.
OK, then let’s kill 'em!!! And let’s kill Eric Rudolph, too!!!
Oh…wait…We don’t know where they are. We don’t even know for sure who did it. Bin Laden? Maybe. But it seems to me that Iraq has the motive and the means as well. How do we know it’s not Saddam Hussein’s further efforts at revenge against the Bush family?
And not knowing who did it, I don’t think we should rush right out and bomb somebody out of sheer fury.
When I talk about a “measured response,” I mean that we need to seek out the perpetrators and punish them. However, I think that statements about retaliation against “those who harbor them” are dangerous. Do we really know that the Taliban are “harboring” Bin Laden? Or has he maybe just holed up in Afghanistan because the country is in such disarray that no one can do anything to stop him? Are we just going to bomb the hell out of Afghanistan? If we do, then it is inevitable that innocent lives will be lost. And that is the sort of thing that can inspire a whole new generation of terrorists.
So when I talk about “turning the other cheek,” I’m don’t mean that we should not seek to find the guilty parties and punish them (assuming that there are guilty parties beyond the terrorists who actually carried out the attack). Rather, I’m talking about not lashing out indiscriminately, out of a sense of anger. We need to count to ten as a nation, and then pursue justice, not revenge.
We know they are harboring him because the Taliban has made statements to that effect. And they were quoted on CNN last night as saying that they would resists surrendering him “to the last drop of Afghani blood.”
OK, that’s new information for me. That would justify in my view an effort to take down the Taliban. But that business about “the last drop of Afghani blood”? I’m under the impression that the Taliban don’t really speak for all Afghanis, so I would be very cautious in using this statement to justify taking on the entire nation of Afghanistan. A general war against Afghanistan is a recipe for disaster, IMHO.
Besides which, I suspect that this statement is just bluster. I seriously doubt that the Taliban could just “hand bin Laden over to us” even if they wanted to. The guy is too wealthy, too well-armed, and too powerful. I doubt that the Talis would want to take him on.
The question of finding out who committed the attack (bin Laden/Hussein/PFLP/little green men from Mars) is a completely different question from what we should do if and when we have identified those responsible (military retaliation/sanctions/nothing/H-bombing). I advocate retaliation as the proper action upon identifying the terrorists; your OP suggested not retaliating.
**
According to CNN, the Taliban has granted bin Laden asylum. That sounds like “harboring” to me. If the Taliban claims not to know where he is, they might get off from the charge of harboring him, but I haven’t heard any such claim as yet. All that is irrelevant until it is determined whether bin Laden is in fact responsible, and it would remain irrelevant if we chose not to retaliate anyway.
I agree, but I hope you will pardon my saying that that was not clear from your OP. When I hear the phrase, “turn the other cheek,” I do not understand it to mean “pursue and punish only those responsible,” and there are very few who would interpret it that way. “Turning the other cheek” usually implies the decision to forgo punishment, not to punish selectively. It also appeared to me that you were discussing not retaliating, rather than confining our retaliation to the guilty parties.
Now that you have clarified your position, I see nothing in it that I disagree with.