Quote:
Originally Posted by bailaviborita
If I'm following you- we'd publicly announce a strategy to counter terrorist attacks that would lead to terrorist calculations of possible war outcomes under any contingency always resulting in outcomes so unfavorable to them that there would be no incentive for their leaders to initiate an attack. Is that right?
The thoughts I have on that are:
- would have to have strong home support for that kind of response (I'm assuming the response would be so great as to work- sort of like nuking or totally destroying the capital of whatever country the attacks came out of?)
- we'd probably have to display the response at some point (I'd argue Hiroshima and Nagasaki gave powerful examples to the USSR as to what we were willing to do)
- we'd have to assume no autonomous sleeper cells would do things on their own and that the terrorist leaders are rational
Although I think the thought is good- I'm not sure the other factors hold that would make it feasible/valid. Maybe if we lost hundreds of thousands to a WMD attack. Anything short of that and I'd argue that the political will at home isn't sufficient to pursue such a strong deterrent strategy. Although, it would be much cheaper, faster, appealing (to human nature), sensical, strategic, etc.
Some have argued that we can't do COIN in Moslem countries anyway- so this would free us up from an impossible mission and allow us to focus on conventional warfare. Too bad we didn't think of this right after 9/11. We could have just knocked Taliban strongholds back into the homo habilis era and warned more would follow if they so much as showed their faces again. Would that have worked?
|
Bailaviborita-
My thoughts are much in line with yours. I think garnering enough popular support for such a strategy would be the greatest obstacle. I think the discussions over the efficacy of such an approach would be energetic, even bitter. But why not have that discussion? This line of conversation may prove untenable or it might lead to an approach that would make America more secure.
My thinking is that this approach would motivate nations to do more to control the conduct of their own citizens. These nations would need to understand that they might be held accountable for terrorist attacks. They would need to understand that terrorist attacks would be construed as acts of war.
The citizens of these nations, rather than dancing in the streets and handing out candy to celebrate bin Laden's 'victory' on 9/11 would have good reason to think that their champion had placed not only their lives in peril, but their very way of life at risk of prompt and utter destruction. This realization could lead to massive demonstrations that led to conversations in which people realize "Hey, these guys, who claim to speak in our name, what have they done for us other than gotten us killed?" (Do not ordinary German citizens pour into the streets by the thousands when their idiot countrymen praise the ghastly specter of Nazism?)
It is said that Muslims have a remarkable sense of their history. Maybe if they had a better sense of our history they'd consider the advantages of leaving us the hell alone. Or, better yet, finding ways to make peace and to form lasting bonds of genuine friendship. The history of the American people is a story of folks from different pasts of finding ways to get along as citizens, neighbors, and friends.
The U.S. has been shouldered with the onus of the burden of proof since this war began. America has conducted itself with a level of restraint that is a testament to its national character (for better and for worse) and to the leadership of Bush the Younger. He has, for reasons I believe history will vindicate
, allowed America to be seen as the heavy. Our angst has clouded our vision. In this ongoing myopic moment, we do not see all the tools at our disposal.
Yes, the implications of this line of reasoning are horrible and the potential outcome is horrific. And that's exactly the point.