Thought on TerrorismFollow

I want top make this clear; I'm not here to debate the merits or detriments that homeland security has on personal freedoms or whatever, but I was thinking today about what exactly the U.S. is doing to try and prevent another terrorist attack. Homeland security, Patriot Act, and all that jazz associated with it.

Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but I'm to understand that the point of terrorism isn't really to kill people, or wage war, but rather, amazingly enough, to create terror in the minds of the people.

Is it not the point of terrorism to make people so afraid of some force, as to make them drasticly change thier lifestyles in response to it? It is to create enough fear as to either disable a country by paralysis, or to make the people give in to demands based in a looming threat.

Now, I ask, what have we done in response to the terrorism? Is implementing homeland security not giving in to Al Queda or whoever the hell else is the terrorist organization of the month?

A friend of mine put it as such. It's like getting your house burgled; 1) if someone breaks in you back door, and you put 50,000 guards out to make sure it doesn't happen again, chances are, the burgler will try another way back in; 2) Is not putting said 50,000 guards outside going just a little overboard, if the guards are disturbing you more than a minor burglery ever did, is the point kinda not defeated?

I guess what I'm trying to say is by implementing so many laws and restrictions, and allowing our lifestyles to change so drasticly, we have giving in to the very people we are trying to fight.

It just seems a little odd to me that people will allow themselves to live in fear in order to fight terrorism, when it pretty much defeats the purpose of the fight.

Saying that instituting security measures is "giving in to the terrorists" is a tad ridiculous. That's like the trolls that come into the Asylum and pat themselves on the back for getting us to say "GFY" to them.

I don't think the measures of security we've taken are overboard, at least not in quantity. Especially considering some of the shortcomings of our intelligence agencies in recent history. Although some of the measures may be...misguided. It's not the expense that concerns people (your 50,000 guard example), it's questionable practices that may violate personal freedoms.

Taking off my shoes at the airport and getting wanded doesn't really bother me. I'd rather be inconvenienced than be burning wreckage. However, the Patriot Act doesn't seem to be the answer.

The only thing that will win this "war" is if we throw politics out the window and make it clear that for every one of us they kill, we will kill fifty. You fight terrorism with force. You make the price of the crime so high that it is a deterrent. Of course, that would upset this or that subgroup, but the president should go on the air and point blank say we will eradicate you and your family from the earth if you wage holy war with us. And then carry it out.

I think we should seek out to make them the ones insecure. Fight fire with fire, after all, we have more of it.

The nature of society is about giving up certain freedoms in return for safety.

You give up the freedom to swing your fist at random people for the safety of not having it done to you. You give up the freedom to drive through the park for the safety of not being hit while walking through the park.

This is part of the social contract between the government and the governed.

Terrorism is an attempt to convince the governed that the government cannot protect them. Theoretically, this will lead to the governing forcing the government to heed the terrorists wishes to prevent further attack.

In the current situation, however, this has led to the governed forfeiting more rights to the government in the pursuit of safety. The question, as always, is how many rights the governed are willing to surrender. The alternative, generally, is revolution - overthrow of the government and replacing it with something the governed feel will protect them better.

A friend of mine who has a masters in history specifically focusing on revolutions pointed out once that populations never overthrow governments during times of crises - they tend to band together against the common foe. It's when the population believes that a crisis is coming and that the government cannot stop it that they tend to revolt.

So, how far with the American population (and, admittedly, others) go in sacrificing personal freedoms for the sake of safety? What will happen if, in spite of these sacrifices, said safety is not delivered?

It should be interesting, as a social study if nothing else. Living through it, though, may be less enjoyable.

Some rebels once wrote something that reflects this train of thought well.


Emphasis added

Oh, to the Patriot Act, homeland security, etc...yes, it's a test as fundamental as our martial response to terrorism. A test of all three branches of our government, and of our people's compliance or rejection of a more fascist government. I've been pretty happy with our responses to such. My only comment on the Patriot Act would be--it should be broken up and not voted wholly nay or yea. It has many good inter-agency allowances, but also many anti-Constitutional dangers. It really should be more than one bill.

By all means, I have nothing against a law that fights the problem. I just don't like when there is a law that seems to fight the symptoms more than the disease. No matter how many terrorists we eliminate there will be more unless the idea itself is destroyed, be that with psycology or force.

I view the patriot act as somthing of a symptom killer. So it catches a thousand terrorists, but the idea of terrorism would live on until it was eliminated, be it by force or other means.

The reason I reach my conclusion is that (and I really should have made this clear) We need to project the message to that part of the world that they can clean up their own messes. We truly cannot stop radicalism, in that respect you are all right in correcting me. However, if we make it clear that this is not something we want to do, but something we feel forced to do.. Then the terrorists will eventually fall out of the sympathy of their people. To me, Iraq was probably the largets step in the wrong direction towards this goal. No WMDs have been found, so now it looks like a war that we wanted to go to as opposed to one that we were reluctantly pulled into. That may or may not be the case, and the debate rages on. However, that war in the Middle East will forever be shrouded in ambiguity because the facts were overlooked. Perhaps Iraq itself isn't a quagmire, but our War on Terror (the one we should be fighting) has now become one. We are no longer the reluctant giant, but a raging bull.. At least to the eyes of an average Middle easterner.

No, sorry, you misunderstand me. What I mean is, their own people would start turning them in. Because they would see that their presence would draw unwanted attention. Kind of like if a crack dealer moved in next door to you. Would you call law enforcement or wait for the gang violence to ensue?

So Lefein, who exactly do you want to attack? Give me a country, or a region, or something. Also state your reason for attacking, and why you think it won't turn out like Iraq has.

I didnt say it would be easy. It's just what would have to be done. Terrorist organizations are nebulous.. They also have popular support (If they didnt we'd have uprooted them by now) At least Im willing to go after the enemy. What you propose is a status quo, which sounds more like gumdrop land. Anyone remember 1993?

Sounds like you are arguing the merits of Real Politic versus Globalism. Understandable argument. I happen to disagree though. Lots of people seem to idolize Real Politic, especially those in Humanities programs at Universities. It's a straightforward idea that seems to be really popular with that particular crowd.


It's seems quite logical to work that way. Worry about your own concerns. Don't interfere with others unless you've got a direct interest in them. It's commonly bandied about in Europe as the "civlized" way to conduct politics. Unfortunately, just as socialism seems intellectually to be a wonderful solution to man's problems, Real Politic also has a hidden dark side that is rarely seen or explored in theory, but seems to bite us in practice virtually every time.

Real Politic tends to manifest as "Regionalism". A nation worrying specifically about it's own populace first and seeking not to "rock the boat" outside that group, will tend naturally to divide the world into regions. Areas where they have interests needed to satisfy their own population's needs, regions that may involve competitors, allies, and trade partners, and regions that "don't matter". This tends to result in some very "interesting" agreements and treaties between nation states that think this way.

This process and thought led us directly to WW1. It led us right on to WW2. It led us recently to the oil for food scam. The inherent problem with that approach to politics is that there is a great incentive to do things that aren't for the good of all, but rather for the good purely of your own country. Couple that with governments that are heavily invested in industry (as most EU governments are), and suddenly there's no reason to pay more for oil if you don't have to. And if a country that you "don't want to meddle with" gets to get away with breaking some rules as a result, that's not a problem (cause we shouldn't be messing with them in the first place, right?).

It doesn't take "evil" for that to happen. It just gradually moves in that direction. WW1 happened because each nation had its own interests. Instead of looking at the big picture (that Europe was a powderkeg) and trying to figure out how to fix things, they each kept hoping that they'd come out ahead from whatever happened. The wheeling and dealing kept going right up until the music stopped and the fighting began. Same exact thing in WW2. European nations refusing to enforce their own rules and allowing Germany and Italy to get away with whatever they wanted. After all, if you're France and you don't care about Austria, you don't care if it gets annexed. You don't care that much if Czechoslovakia does as well. And Poland? Not a chance. After all, taking action would be "meddling", right?


While there is some value in not being too much of a busybody, history has shown us convincingly that in an industrial world, nations focusing on their own issues and ignoring any sort of global outlook will result in increased conflict. The "goal" of Real Politic is to avoid confrontations, but that ultimately only ends up meaning that the ones that inevitably result are much larger then they could have been.

Globalism is the idea of taking actions with a more global view. While it certainly can be abused as well (and the US can be pointed at in that respect), there is at least the consolation that conflicts will tend not to become huge. It's the idea of taking a lot of smaller actions in order to avoid letting something become a problem that will be "big".

What's funny is that it's not as though the US has become any more agressive in its global stance in the last couple decades then it was before. What's actually happening is that Europe is receeding back into Regionalism and Real Politic. With the threat of the USSR receeding, they don't feel the urgent need to take action around the world, or work for a "common" good, or do anything that's outside their own backyard and their own interests. That's what we're really seeing here.

Their approach to terrorism (just to bring this back on topic) seems very practical. Don't mess with them, and they wont mess with us. But it's unrealistic. Well, it's realistic as long as there is someone else more "involved" then they are. That's where we come in. Europe is more then happy to allow us to be the bad guy and enforce the rules, and if it keeps the target off them, but keeps trade flowing as well, they make out great. Real Politic at its finest. The problem is that if everyone does that, the whole system collapses. Someone has to make the trade deals. Someone has to make sure there's some sort of order around the globe to prevent things from devolving into massive regional conflicts. Only Globalistic approaches address that.

So the really nice sounding method of dealing with Terrorism, while nice sounding, ultimately does not work when applied uniformally. It would be really nice to "get out of the middle east", but if everyone does that, where does the oil come from? Who do we buy it from? What nation? What tribe? And do we just sit back while that region slips into tribal fighting again? How many millions will die if we don't "meddle" in the middle east?


To address another aspect of this. Someone mentioned that the goal of terrorism is to change what somene else does. That's not totally correct. The goal of terrorism is to force a government to change its actions by making the population of that government force that change in order to stop the terrorism. Just change alone isn't that goal. I can guarantee you that there is not a single terrorist organization in the world that thinks that the passing of the patriot act furthers their cause, or sees it as a victory in *any* way. They don't see it that way. Why would they? It's a really odd sort of reverse thinking that comes up with the "By changing our way of life, the terrorists have won!" idea. It's just not true. It may indeed represent a "loss" to us, but it's not a "win" to them at all.

Also, you have to realize that there's a distinction between what the goal of terrorism is, and what motivates someone to become a terrorist. Most terrorists aren't thinking of forcing some kind of political change. They are people who, for one reason or another, hate another group enough to kill them indiscriminately. It's critically important to realize that distinction. You can stop a terrorist organization. Those are the groups that take people with that level of hate and use them for their political change agenda. You can attempt to stop those that hate, but that's pretty much impossible. In all history, there have always been groups that hate others for no reason that can be prevented. As long as different people have *any* interaction with eachother anywhere in the world, there will be people who will develop that level of hate.

Thus, the goal in a war against terrorism isn't to fight and kill those people. That's pretty ineffective. The goal is to destroy the groups and structures that take those people and point them at specific targets. Take away the money, and the training, and the leadership, and you're left with a bunch of people sitting around complaining about something. That's how you fight terrorism. In that respect Bush has been right on with how he's managed it. Instead of focusing on Bin Laden, or Al-queda, or any one specific group of terrorists, he's pushed for actions aimed at preventing those groups from being able to do anything effectively. That way you don't just squish the group in front of you, but you make it harder for the next group as well.


There is certainly some merit in trying to fix the actual problems that cause those groups to form in the first place, but it has to be addressed on a case by case basis and not as a blanket policy. You have to always realize that there will always be people who hate. You have to always realize that there will always be people who'll have the means and desire to take those people who hate, and turn them into a political weapon. Blanketly giving in to that only encourages more of it. That's not a good idea. Legitimate issues, should be addressed and resolved, but not because some group killed a bunch of people in an attack, but because they are legitimate issues. Interestingly enough, a globalistic approach can make those sorts of decisions (figuring out what's best not just for your region, but for another region as well). Real Politic will never do that. They'll do only what is required to prevent damage to themselves, but will *never* act to "fix" something in another part of the world.

Kind of a rambling post, I admit. But I really think that many people have some grave misunderstandings of the motivations and goals of terrorists. This seems to lead to some very flawed ideas about how to "fix" the problem. IMO, you can't run from terrorism. Once it starts, it will continue unless you do something about it. One can also argue that terrorism occurs when civil unrest *would*, but is prevented by those evil globalists who are keeping things stable in the region. Unable to collapse their own governments and take power, they instead turn to terrorism to attack that which is seen as getting in their way. This certainly seems to explain nicely why so many Saudi's become terrorists. Sprinkle in a bit of religion, and it's pretty easy to recruit. But we have really only two choices. Abandon the region and allow it to collapse entirely into war (which it will), or find a way to destroy the terrorist groups themselves. While Europe may be happy to sit on the fence on this, someone has to take action. Unfortunately, that's logically going to end up being the US.

Thank you gbaji. That was very insightful.



And that as well, I had not thought of that.



I would howver, pose a question to this. By staying the course, regardless of the motives, and maintaining stability in an area of unrest, might we not just be prolonging the inevitable? If left to its own devices, surely the region would devolve into war, but could that not be a neccesary consequense?

For instance, I reference the American Revolution, (yes I know it's got differences, but for the purpose of simplicity). It took long years of war and bloodshed for the Colonies to emerge victorious over another country that was trying to keep stability in the area (for one reason or another), but in the end, (despite its flaws) the government formed was one of the most stable and most fair to its citizens (idealy anyway)that has been created.

My point being, perhaps by keeping a forced stability in the region we are keeping it in a state of stagnation to where a government cannot be formed.

***
spelling and crap
***
Hmm I think I have a troll, yay my very first troll :)



Edited, Thu Jan 13 16:15:08 2005 by Pensive