Quote:
So?
Go out and kill them too. Keep killing them until they surrender.
It's not like they're the Junior Chamber of Commerce or anything
|
That's one approach, certainly. However, the US does not seem to taking this approach with their half-assed war to date. I've been trying to find a book (which I can't remember the title of unfortunately) by the former head of the 'Osama' desk at the CIA that suggests the only way to cure the terrorist problem is to bomb them back to the stone ages. IIRC, he suggested so called humanitarian wars were counter productive and only make the US look weak in Muslim eyes.
The other approach is to address the problems at the root cause and design foreign policy that reduces the number of greivances Muslims have with the US. I doubt anyone can seriously suggest US foreign policy is logical and even handed towards Muslims since GW took office and not much better prior to that. Even if you care to suggest that it is, I doubt you'd find enough Muslims to fill a room to agree with you.
The world has become such that being a superpower is not all it used to be. Destructive power has been dispersed to ever smaller groups, and it's time policy explicitly recognized this. Historically, governments with big armies have extracted benefits from other governments (see the different treatment of Iraq and North Korea). Somehow, it is not surprising to me that terrorists are now seeking to extract the same sort of treatment by directly threatening citizens.
Given this, there are two solutions to conflict in today's world IMO, neither of which is being embraced. One, you can bomb the living sheet out of countries and end the threat entirely by wiping out nations. Unpopular, immoral and downright wrong IMO. Two, you can move towards a legitimate world government (I think the EU model is pretty good to start with though it has typical cumbersome European flaws that make it slow and less effective than it could be) that legitimately cuts across borders to control threats and resolve disputes - with the proliferation of technology, I doubt terrorism is going away. Economy, power and safety are drivers of government - since these are now all becoming global in nature, it seems pretty logical to me that a global body needs to be in place to deal with these issues. Killing the UN was not a good start.
My problem with US policy is they believe they deserve the right to unilaterally impose 'solutions' b/c they are the biggest. My problem with terrorists is they believe they have the right to unilaterally threaten people to get 'solutions' to their problems. Call me naive, but I think it would be pretty easy to show via mathematics or simple logic (which gov'ts use extensively to assess threats so don't dismiss the idea based on the fact that it uses math) that unilateralism loses effectiveness as power is dispersed via modern weaponry that is ever smaller and more deadly.