A few days ago the Geek dissected the nature of terrorism. The main point is simply that history has shown that terrorism is a successful tactic only when people allow themselves to be terrorised. To put it another way, terror works only with the willing cooperation of members of the target population.
People face lethal risks all the time. We know that. We accept that reality everytime we get behind the wheel. If we keep an eye on the news we are quite aware that people are murdered every day.
What the hey? Golfers can be seen on the course even with the thunderstorm almost overhead, electricity attracting clubs held on high.
None of these threats any more than the slippery bottom of bathtub or shower terrorise us. They are all accepted as part of life. They are even accepted with the casual denial shown by a combat infantryman.
The next guy will get wasted. Not me.
Perhaps it is his experience with war forty years ago that propelled former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell to make just this point not only in his interview published in GQ magazine but in recent speeches. He insists, correctly, that while terrorists may destroy buildings and kill people, they are powerless to destroy a nation or force a change in that nation's policies.
Only the citizens with their reactions to terror attacks can do that. If enough members of We the People willingly identify with the immediate victims of an attack and say to themselves, "I'm terrorized," then policies will change. Only then will the nation be truly threatened.
"Wait one!" The Geek hears you say.
"Have at it," the Geekmo replies.
You do. "In all the threats of everyday life, I'm in control. I drive my car. I step into the shower. I'm in charge. And, I'm too good at what I do to allow an accident to happen."
The Geek nods agreement.
You go on. "Terrorism is something different. I'm not in charge. There's nothing I can do. I'm just a target."
The Geek is quite willing to acknowledge that feeling. He's had the experience of trying to hide behind a small rock as distant mortar tubes went, "Chunk," and quivering as the incoming rounds hit nearer and nearer.
Feeling helpless sucks. Big time.
However, the historical record shows clearly and convincingly that terror tactics usually do not work. Londoners during the famed "Blitz" as well as Germans during the years of round the clock bombing by US and British aircraft prove that. In North Ireland and England the long years of the Provisional IRA terror attacks were ineffective because people refused to react with feelings of helplessness and fear.
If all that history isn't enough, then add the experience of the Israelis. No people have been the target of terror tactics for so long and in such lethal quantity. While the public has demanded and the government provided military responses of doubtful utility, there has been no pervasive sense of helplessness and fear among the Israelis.
"Wait one, Geek!" You interrupt. "What the hell choice do they have? Their existence is at stake. They gotta suck it up and press on."
True enough. For the Israelis the situation is existential. It is the same for any other people under the threat of terror attacks.
That includes us, bucko.
Get a grip on this. The goal of Islamist terrorists is, at the least, to achieve an American withdrawal not simply from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from the Mideast. At the most, the goal is to force a collapse of the US.
While the second, more expansive goal, is unlikely in the extreme, the first is always no more than an election away.
A terror attack at the wrong time can either alter--or seem to alter--the course of an election. The perceived impact of the Islamist bombing in Madrid upon the Spanish election no doubt has given Islamists the feeling that terror is a potent political weapon.
A weapon that might be useable against the United States with more positive effects from their point of view than the events of 9/11.
In so far as Osama bin Laden and others like him have any strategic perspective it is derived from their reading of American history and cultural values. The Islamists are convinced that the American public lacks the moral fortitude to withstand the combination of failure and dead bodies.
The Islamists got this idea from the US failure in the Vietnam War. They built it from the quick US departure from Somalia in the wake of the failed Ranger attack in Mogadishu. They reinforced their belief from the less than impressive American reactions to their bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania as well as the later attack on the USS Cole.
The current debate over the war in Iraq must bolster the Islamist belief that the American people cannot withstand prolonged failure. This may well give rise to the conclusion that the time is ripe or nearly so for another round of attacks upon us.
The Geek has a high degree of confidence in the US intelligence community. In his view it is better today than it was six years ago. He is willing to say the same about portions of the internal security system.
No matter how good our off-shore detection and interdiction might be, no matter how effective our internal security agencies might have become, no system is unbeatable. After all, Israel has an enormously effective intelligence, defense, and internal security system. But, even so, the blackhats can and do penetrate with lethal consequences.
Only We the People, each and every one of us, can make the decision when the next attack occurs. Will we be terrorised? Or will we acknowledge along with General Powell that terror might destroy, maim, and kill, but only we can give it power over us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
"He insists, correctly, that while terrorists may destroy buildings and kill people, they are powerless to destroy a nation or force a change in that nation's policies.
Only the citizens with their reactions to terror attacks can do that. If enough members of We the People willingly identify with the immediate victims of an attack and say to themselves, "I'm terrorized," then policies will change. Only then will the nation be truly threatened."
And in our political environment, we take another hit like what happened on 09.11.2001, and we'll have pol's from across the political spectrum trying to outdo each other. The crap will get so crazy because they'll all be trying to prove who's the "toughest political badass" regarding Terrorism, and honestly, that's the last thing we need.
You are unlikely to agree, but I can live with much of the Patriot Act provisions. My real concern is that I don't want a "new, improved version" when we replay 09.11, and it's probably going to happen. And when it occurs, we are going to be at the mercy of the (most likely) least stable pol's out there. How would you like to have the brilliance of Patty Murray, Barbara Boxer, or John Murtha creating national security policy. Scared? - Should be.
Reality is, we don't need more draconian national security laws - we need a strong, vibrant economy. If we've got that, the US will shrug off another strike as an "owie". We won't forget, and we'll deal with it. But IMO, more new national security laws won't help the economy, just hinder it's recovery.
Actually, the Geek isn't uncomfortable with most of the poorly named Patriot Act. He is willing to agree that the stronger the US economy, the more resilient the American political will. This leads him to wonder what our economy would look like today if we had not invaded Iraq at a cost of nearly one trillion dollars.
What would the economy be like if, instead of fighting the wrong war against the wrong enemy in the wrong place at the wrong time (to quote General Omar Bradley regarding the idea of invading China in 1951), we had instead invested the trillion dollars in a serious program to develop alternatives to Persian Gulf and Arabian Peninsula oil.
The ultimate way to defeat the Islamists is to make the Mideast less compellingly relevant to US interests. One critical way to do this is the development of alternatives to oil.
This, of course, means something more serious and less economically counterproductive than using alcohol derived from US grown corn as a gasoline extender. It means something more real than the oil shale boondoggle of the Seventies which might have enriched some of the big oil companies but failed to produce a useful outcome.
While zany pols have always been the first responders to any national catastrophe, this does not negate the basic premise of this post as well as its predecessor from a couple of weeks ago. "The Purpose of Terrorism Is To Terrorize."
Only the reaction of the aggregate population matters. If the majority do not allow themselves to be cowed by the destructive act(s) whether performed by suicide bombers, exploding post boxes or the Air Forces of a country, then there is and cannot be any terror. There can only be destroyed buildings and dead bodies. Nothing more.
It sounds cold to dismiss even bigger, more deadly acts as mere destroyed buildings and dead bodies, but that is the lesson of history. Ask the British. Or the Germans. Or the North Vietnamese. Only each of us, as individuals, has the power to empower the terrorist.
"This leads him to wonder what our economy would look like today if we had not invaded Iraq at a cost of nearly one trillion dollars.
What would the economy be like if, instead of fighting the wrong war against the wrong enemy in the wrong place at the wrong time (to quote General Omar Bradley regarding the idea of invading China in 1951), we had instead invested the trillion dollars in a serious program to develop alternatives to Persian Gulf and Arabian Peninsula oil."
Got to call you out on these two. First off, I have real doubts about the "one trillion dollar" fantasy numbers being tossed around out there. Based upon everything I've seen, there's a whole lot of soft numbers thrown together to get to the trillion dollar numbers regarding Iraq.
Secondly, the alternative energy plan is a pipe dream with the current history of Congress, circa 1990 to current. Now, so far, we probably have spent that trillion dollars (regardless of Iraq) on alternative energy, and honestly, it's been substantially, if not totally wasted. There's this little thing called "Congressional Earmarks", and if you give then an extra trillion dollars, guess what, that's just a really, really, really large "Congressional Earmark(s)". Just a waste of money going in.
The Geek although he is not much of a science wonk has been pushing for alternative energy research and development since roughly 1972, long before the subject became fashionable. Even before the "oil shock" in the wake of the Yom Kippur war.
Through the past thirty-five years, the Geek has remained disappointed with the various R&D efforts funded by the congresswallahs. Now, the Geek, as usual guided by history, comes close to cosmic despair regarding an intelligent, focused effort regarding reduction of our dependence upon foreign oil. The only thing that brought the briefest glimmer of hope was the impetus of the "GLOT" which should have focused our attention on the roots of the problem.
Of course it didn't. Again history is the guide. The First Cold War provided the necessary impetus for the Apollo program. Properly considered, the start of the Second Cold War would have done the same regarding oil. It would have provided a linkage between several components of We the People--Greens, Liberals and non-NeoCon rightists.
For a few seconds, the Geek was so blinded by history that he overlooked several critical factors: Namely, the power of "bidness," the unfortunate, but quite documentable reality that the congresswallahs of recent vintage are more tightly connected to the money chase of the election cycle than their predecessors of a mere thirty or forty years ago and the overweening influence of neocons in the current administration.
Still and all, the US has no choice except to make a serious effort on the alternative energy front. As the Geek noted in his post this means a program far more reality oriented than the ill-advised, economically counterproductive alcohol from corn notion which has already boosted the prices of milk, meat, poultry and other necessities of life without having any positive impact on gas prices. It also means an attack on the problem that, as previously noted, transcends the profits of energy companies or the short-term election prospects of the pols as was the case with previous, half-hearted, over-funded, unproductive efforts.
Is it too much to expect proper performance out of Congress and the next administration?
History cuts two ways on that question. Despite his natural occupational bent to extreme cynicism, the Geek will have to bet in the affirmative. The national interest allows no less.
BTW The Geek isn't convinced by the trillion buck figure either. Going back over the past five years of budget bills and supplementals as well as taking a look at the upcoming W budget and factoring in some, but not all, of the out year expenses related to Iraqi veterans need, the Geek is reasonably convinced that a trillion dollars is in the right order of magnitude.
Like Sen Ev Dirksen said, "A billion dollars here, a billion there and pretty soon it adds up to real money."
you spell a lot of word wrong
Post a Comment