My good folks of the SDMB:
I am at a loss for words regarding the raging debates that seem to cycle around how force should be applied with respect to the WTC attack. Scylla has started a thread on it, and Zenster has also. I will not attempt to speak for them, though I certainly did-- and will continue to-- post to those threads.
I have been advocating the use of force, and I know others here do as well. What seems to be unclear is what form exactly that force will take.
As for myself, I do not seek a total war/scorched earth policy solution. Very few of the regulars seem to (in fact, none of them do when prompted directly). And yet the response to our mention of force is knee-jerk response to perceived knee-jerking.
Well, I can say this is not the case for myself.
However, allow me to display my perception of the situation. We have an area of the world that has been on the shit-end of some bad foreign policy of the US. But the foreign policy was directed at the already bad leaders and circumstances in the area. It wasn’t like the US walked in and everyone started killing each other. The seeds of violence, if not the violence itself, was already there.
Terrorism, on the other hand, was pretty much non-existent before we stepped in. And this only makes sense. The radical factions were fighting conventional war with conventional weapons. When a superpower entered the picture, however, the odds suddenly flew away from those who we did not side with.
Now, history is not clear-- at all-- on how a situation like this should play out. We do know how it did play out, though, with our 20/20 hindsight. The radical elements got more radical. The ethical combatants dug WW1 trenches. And those who did not stand against the US now do because of the allies we chose to make. This was primarily seen in Israel where terrorism first reared its ugly head in the form we know it today. I am not certain whether or not any governments began such a campaign; in fact, I somewhat doubt it. But what the governments involevd did do was not give up their position in the matter. Direct conflict and terrorist attacks led to retaliatory strikes. A tit for a tat, and so on. You bomb our embassy, we send in a cruise missle.
And it was understood that terrorism was a problem. The solution has been to react to terrorism by sttempting to stifle it, much like having a fire in an office building and simply containing it.
There was, quite possibly, a time for diplomacy in regards to terrorism. It was probably even tried to some weak extent. No contry overtly supports terrorism, for example. However, terrorism remains the last bastion of “defense” in a radical’s struggle. For a clear perspective on the general case of terrorism-- that is, the general case for undermining an opponent-- I heartily recommend everyone read the Comunist Manifesto which deals with advocating internal strife through political means. The so-called Unabomber Manifesto deals with this sort of terrorism as well, but makes an even broader (though less rigorously developed) case, hinting strongly at an anti-liberal-but-not-rightist revolution. The authors explicitely stated force was not the only method to accomplish their revolution, but it is the route they chose.
This brand of terrorism is not dissimilar. Its form is vastly different, its morals are seemingly incongruent with honesty, and Communists would and should be rightly offended by the implication. I understand, and I am prepared to take some heat for that analogy, but please read on and see why I make the comparison, but also show why it is partially false.
But we should begin to recognize that terrorist activity is not limited in scope to simply killing innocent civilians. It is a mindset that a group is attempting to impose.
The psychological warfare that peaceful demonstrators use is founded on a few rather simple principles. One: areligious Manichaeanism-- we are right, and those against us are wrong. Two: human malleability-- we can reason with these people to help them see we are right. Three: causality-- there is a reason we are right in the first place, and we can demonstrate it.
To me, this is also terrorism. It seeks to undermine the social construct and replace it with a new one by mental force. Societal sabotage, if you will.
The breed of terrorism that we faced in the WTC, however, does not invoke all of the principles above. Allow me to demonstrate.
Areligious Manichaeanism: Our goal is right, and those who don’t think so are wrong. Check.
Human Malleability: we can reason with these people. BZZT!-- wrong. I hope no one disagrees that explicit force in any form and reason are diametrically opposed. Guns and bombs are not tools of debate, they are shaping tools. We cannot change our opponents mentally, we must eradicate their presence through force. So a big “X” here for WTC-style terrorism.
Causality: there is a reason we are right in the first place. Check that.
Now, there are many people who seek to understand the terrorists in an attempt to combat them more effectively. I believe that Scylla, Zenster, and perhaps even Spiritus Mundi disagree with this premise for the reason I gave above: they have already demonstrated that they do not see a way to shift the situation, they must shape it themselves.
There is nothing to understand here. What shapes violent terrorism is a single belief: we cannot convince our enemies we are right. That is it. That’s what seperates demonstrators who distribute pamphlets from terrorists who distribute death. It is a remarkably large leap. It involves a person or persons casting peace aside as impossible. It is reactionary isolationism.
The cause of this is simple: a refusal to recognize pluralism. I see no other cause here. Can we eliminate this cause? No, not really. We can pull flammables away from the office fire, but we can’t remove the stuff that’s already burning without putting out the fire first.
This is why I whole-heartedly advocate the use of force. Once the fire is out we can begin to act preventatively. In fact, as we fight the fire we can act preventatively elsewhere where no fires are demonstratably burning. But we need to get that fire put out. We need to wipe out existing terrorism. The terrorists have demonstrated they are not willing to use reason; there is no cause for us to try. It is a huge shame.
So do I support a much more appropriate and active foreign policy? Yes. Do I support incredible efforts of humanitarian aid? Undoubtedly. Do I find that this will eliminate terrorism? Probably not. What it will do is halter the push of more people into terrorism, and remove (hopefully) the reactionary isolationist attitude that is our largest enemy here.
But make no mistake: there needs to be a threat of force in the face of existing terrorist activities, and there needs to be a willingness to use that force through to its logical conlcusion should the need arise. It can no longer suffice to bomb a few buildings and wait, bomb a few buildings and wait.
Understand, also, that the force I advocate takes two distinct forms. One: the overt threat. This is used against the governments who may have turned a blind eye to terrorism, or outright funded it. The stance is, “We will not hesitate to damage you if you do not help eliminate this very real threat to international policy and even diplomacy itself.” Two: the use of explicit force without looking back. This one is for the terrorists, the ones who cannot respond to peace offerings because they feel there is no peace possible, there is no pluralism. We must not hesitate to strike agaisnt these people. We must try very hard to avoid any civilian casualties but should it be a choice between civilian casualties to a minor degree (in scope, not in moral evaluations) and letting a terrorist get away, we should choose to go after the terrorist. This is an unfortunate side-effect of fighting with an opponent who has no fear of death. We cannot threaten, we must use his own tools against him. The terrorist wants to shape reality, we must shape back. We must carve every rock under which he wants to hide, we must make every hovel that would normally be a safe-haven a trap. This is not revenge. This is not “stooping to the level of terrorists.” This is, quite simply, eliminating places to hide and plan again for another day. “The Overt Threat” is crucial in eliminating funding from governmental agencies, but they can still hide and take money from private interests. We must strike against this method as well.
The lives we save, and the possibility for peace and freedom (in whatever form that freedom should take) will be unprecidented if we recognize the mistakes we’ve made in the past, and we move strongly and boldly forward toward the elimination of terrorism and advocate an internationally pluralist platform.
