Posted by
JDComments on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 2:09:36 PM
The debate over whether terrorism should be seen as a law enforcement problem or military matter is ongoing, with the Dems by their support of suspect rights and the need for warrants and other legal niceties taking the former view while the administration supports the latter. There does seem to be a third perspective which is encapsulated in this
article and it is that terrorism is a lowgrade nuisance which we can learn to live with as we do with traffic fatalities and drownings in bathtubs. But can we?
John Mueller, the proponent of this opinion, appears to lean libertarian, and that would justify a view which argues that all the costs and efforts used to protect us against terrorism are wasted if you consider the actual effects of terrorists attacks as opposed to their psychological ramifications, which he argues we are furthering by our panicky responses. In other words , if we take them in stride they will lose their potency and hopefully be abandoned as tactics by Islamofascists.
The author gives a good counterargument which shows that the number and effects of these attacks are increasing, and that just looking at deaths misses the symbolism of losing a World Trade Center to these fanatics. He also points out that thwarted attacks are never noticed by definition, and so the tremendous costs to stop them seem wasted when in truth they are most definitely working. In this case success is almost self defeating if constant reinforcement of the threat is what is required to keep people motivated. Hopefully it is not.
He doesn't point out that the spread of WMD's, and especially nuclear technology, over the last decade has increased the potential damage of a terrorist attack exponentially, and now a small group of madmen could conceivably wipe out a small city. I think it is safe to say this removes the threat from the "nuisance " category.
However, I think the main factor in magnifying the lethality of terrorism attacks is the fact that it has now become a state sponsored activity to a degree never before seen. Yes, Libya did underwrite some terrorists, but nothing on the scale we see today . Part of the reason for that is the tremendous wealth that Iran has accumulated from the price of oil. When push comes to shove money always talks, and today it is screaming "Allah be praised".
I must confess that after 9/11 I , too, was of the opinion that to allow Al Quaida to control our activities was almost an insult, and that our response should be much more moderate given the small resources of the enemy we faced. However, over the last five years as I have watched the true enablers of terrorism grow wealthy and pursue the ultimate weapons I have come around to supporting the military option as the only viable choice to defeat a multiheaded enemy who truly seeks world domination, and it scares me to see that there are still those out there who just don't understand that we are not dealing with a nuisance but a terrifying menace to all we hold dear.