Required Reading
Ron Coleman:
it’s not surprising that Western police and security forces haven’t thought of every possible tactical approach that these Davids — and, really, terrorism is all about being a David; all about using focused and conceptually distinct force to knock out a Goliath who could never be overcome by brute force — will cook up. Frankly they’re more motivated toward originality, and they’re, well, more wicked.
They’ll always have one up on us if we, Goliath-like, think we have to guess everything they might do in advance. The only way to turn this formula on its head (not to say that more and better security, training and planning isn’t called for) is to better manage the way we allow terrorism to affect policy — to make these “stunning victories,” if not less stunning, less victorious.
Read the rest here.
There are a lot of reasons that terrorism works, but one of the main ones is that the victims of terrorism allow the terrorists to act somewhat freely while the victims maintain their civility and other political niceties.
We are faced with Islamic terrorism that is supported tacitly by nation states such as Syria and Iran, and by nations that abrogate their responsibility to police their own people such as Pakistan and Somalia.
If we continue to pretend that the Westphalian order still applies and we must abide by notions of international law that are no longer viable, then we will continue to be victimized by terrorists.
Instead, we should declare that Pakistan must immediately end Al Qaeda’s control of its northern states or we will do it for them.
The only way to defeat terrorism is to kill people that are or would be terrorists and their leadership. We can let no one stand in the way of that principled goal.
You sound like that Bush guy we used to hear about.
I like it.
When terrorism doesn’t work, it will stop. Not one day before then.
Skyler, Somalia doesn’t have a government. Nor anything close to one. Pakistan’s government is like Afghanistan’s: it holds a capital, collects taxes, and some portion of the populace listens to it, but most of the people do what they need to get by.
Organized terrorism can work if it has a base of both people to hide in and a goal that those people share with the terrorists. It will last until that group of people get their demands met or that group of people have their lives destroyed while attempting to get their demands met. Coleman’s example (Israel/Palestine) is good in that it shows what the PLO achieved, but it ignores the same factor we have in our single-minded (though still needed) hunt for Al Qaeda: they’re only one of the enemies.
Israel has given the PLO and the Palestinians much of what they asked for because they are not the biggest enemy of Israel. Israel has come to realize that they will never be surrounded by friends and allies, has cut its losses, and is now in a better position to move on to the next series of assholes who will come after it in the years and decades ahead. Their borders can be secured better than ever if they stop wasting their resources on settlements, their Palestinian enemies who are sick of fighting can start to have normal lives, and it will be harder for those outside agitators to get teenagers to blow themselves up in Hebron and Tel Aviv.
Israel isn’t naive enough to think it has ended a national nightmare, but it is smart enough to see when it can trade some security for some land it wasn’t going to hold on to without constant trouble.
Jon, I know that they don’t have effective governments but international law still regards those places as nations, government or no government.
The people of those nations are responsible for the lack of law contained therein. If we don’t want to be accountable for what is happening in their nation, they must pay the consequences.
Skyler, I don’t think Pakistan’s and Somalia’s governments “abrogate” their responsibilities to police their people. I think they just plain can’t. Pakistan doesn’t have that ability. Somalia’s government can’t even have a quorum in a basement to play Yatzee.
And hell, when push comes to shove, I don’t think the United States military could successfully occupy the United States.
Terrorism is a fact of life in regions that have unstable/feckless governments, lots of jobless youth, some sorts of oppression (real or imagined or–generally–both,) enemies to kill but that can’t be overthrown, the hopelessness of other traditionally-non-terrorist tactics, and so on.
How do you hold a Somali dirt farmer responsible for the actions of a Somali pirate? How can a barber in Islamabad be held responsible for a Taliban militiaman in the Waziristan region? They are already paying consequences for having a powerless government, a region of lawlessness in their region, and the lack of a stable future that brings. “They must pay the consequences” you say, but is that something we really want their entire nation to pay for when the problem is much more like a flea on someone’s pet rat rather than the rat itself?
International law is a funny thing to cite, Skyler. Piracy and cross-border terrorism are banned, as is punishing the populace for the actions of the leaders (without an approved resolution, naturally.) Our dealings with terror-harboring nations must include that in our thinking, but in the end we must act with practicality. If there was anything valuable in Somalia, someone would already be in charge there. All they have to profit from is piracy and illegal shipping. And the warring sides can’t defeat each other or be powerful enough to do anything other than grab at their own pieces of shit pie.
But really, the question is: if the people in lawless regions must pay the consequences of living in lawless regions, do you want to do: genocide or oppression? Genocide is illegal, immoral, and generally leads to the overthrow of the offending nation. Oppression involves a slow strangulation of a region, usually involves a military presence we don’t have spare capacity toward right now, and also has backlash issues. Each method is also very likely to lead to desperate attacks upon us, probably aided by desperate regimes that would have every incentive to give nihilists something with which to lash out.
I guess there’s a third way: hoping they sort it out for themselves. But those regions have little use for a nation-state, so we’d be in for a long wait. This is sort of the response we’re taking, since there’s little reason to believe government can work in places like Somalia. All it is is a border, and with few neighbors interested in adding to their own geography and little hope of effective leadership from within, the people there are screwed.
A response to terrorism is generally going to be unsatisfying, since those bastards always get to strike first. There’s just no avoiding that, generally. We usually don’t know who they are until they’ve released their first video newsletter following their debut acts of assholery. But unless we can institute 1984-style governments elsewhere in a world where we couldn’t even do that to ourselves, we’ll always be on the defense. And that sucks, but once we go on offense against anyone who may have bad feelings against us, we’ll never be able to quit.
Which isn’t to say they shouldn’t be rooted out when found, nor that they shouldn’t be looked for, just that we’ll never be able to stop terrorists from popping up out of what they consider hopeless situations.
“I don’t think Pakistan’s and Somalia’s governments “abrogate” their responsibilities to police their people. I think they just plain can’t.”
Non sequitur. That’s what it means when they don’t or can’t police their people, they have abrogated their responsibility.
“I don’t think the United States military could successfully occupy the United States.”
I think you’re confusing dictatorship with the rule of law.
“Terrorism is a fact of life in regions that have unstable/feckless governments,”
Exactly. That’s because their governments are feckless and unstable. And whose fault is that? The people of those nations who have a responsibility to form a government where the rule of law prevails. If there is no consequence for not doing so, then good men will do nothing in the face of immediate danger and live cowed lives while terrorists run amok and export their killing to other nations.
“How can a barber in Islamabad be held responsible for a Taliban militiaman in the Waziristan region?”
Because if he is not held responsible, then he allows others to be evil. Guilt from lack of taking action.
“International law is a funny thing to cite, Skyler. Piracy and cross-border terrorism are banned, as is punishing the populace for the actions of the leaders (without an approved resolution, naturally.)”
Didn’t I say that the Westphalian nation-state is a failed model because of this reason?
“But really, the question is: if the people in lawless regions must pay the consequences of living in lawless regions, do you want to do: genocide or oppression?”
Why are those the only choices? Why not simply attack until they surrender and live responsibly? It’s not genocide when you are defending your way of life from their attacks.
By making war clean and neat, we have taken much of the horror out of it. Only by making the price unbearable can we rely on good behavior from nations that would otherwise allow terrorists and pirates to live among them.
How can a leaderless group surrender? How can you even declare war on a people? That’s called genocide, since any army against people situation would be a slaughter. Especially when there’s no leadership to offer terms of surrender. The nihilist approach to nihilism isn’t going to be effective.
And blaming the people for the actions of their governments justifies terrorism just as much as it can justify fighting it with those methods. Are the PLO terrorist for fighting against Israel, or are they terrorists because they fight Israel by blowing up buses and stabbing toddlers? Since Israeli citizens are responsible for their government, those toddlers and commuters must then be considered fair game. Right?
No.
Jon, the nation has to surrender, not the terrorists. The terrorists must simply be killed.
Since when is a declaration of war genocide? That’s is preposterous. We warred against the nation of Japan. We warred against the nation of Germany. Why isn’t that genocide is your rather strange view?
“Are the PLO terrorist for fighting against Israel, or are they terrorists because they fight Israel by blowing up buses and stabbing toddlers?”
They are an enemy of Israel for fighting against Israel. The means they’ve used are terrorism.
I don’t know of anyone stabbing toddlers, that’s absurd. If it has happened, and the nation of Israel condones it, then the PLO should do something about it. But if it has happened, I’ll warrant that it was not condoned by Israel, which is by and large a nation of laws.
If Israel did condone stabbing of toddlers that did not deserve to be stabbed, then yes, the people of Israel are culpable for allowing that government to stay in power. That’s how it’s supposed to work. That’s what warfare is all about. The problem is that the Westphalian system takes the consequences of supporting that government out of the equation, so people are free to support evil regimes without threat.
It was an Israeli three- or four-year-old who was stabbed multiple times by some nitwit guy who got a hero’s welcome upon release to Lebanon. Absurd is right, but it happened.
Germany and Japan had governments and militaries which were able to speak for the people. The German military, the only effective portion of their remaining government, surrendered. Japan’s government surrendered. What corresponding part of Somalia would surrender?
Without any means for the Somalis to surrender, without any government to overthrow, your suggested approach that places blame squarely upon all Somalis for the actions of some Somalis fails the smell test. Your rhetoric and your goals don’t mesh easily. You say all the Somalis are responsible for everything done from their borders, justifying a military response against them all. I compared it to a Palestinian response to Israel’s offenses, and you missed the point (though it is nice of you to admit that stabbing a toddler is absurd.)
What I’m saying, and I might as well repeat myself since electrons are cheap, is that fighting a people without a government is tantamount to genocide since there is no mechanism set up for them to surrender. I’m also saying it would be counterproductive, lead to more terrorists, and necessitate a policy of genocide to stop that. It’s an easy call with a huge “Don’t Go There!” warning sign. We both agree that we can and should take out the terrorists, but we differ on the idea of the responsibility of the masses. You aren’t necessarily advocating genocide, just an eradication of terrorists and their, even lukewarm, supporters. In other words, you’re advocating genocide.
Just admit it and the advocacy of your position will become much easier. You won’t have to shy away from words that you have learned to shun. Your fear of becoming your enemy weakens you. You can fight forever! Imagine how big a man you can become, destroying countless villages and sheep. And then grow up and realize that some things aren’t on the table for a reason.
No, it’s not genocide and you’re being intentionally inflammatory and insulting.
The people of Pakistan and Somalia have to accept responsibility for the governments or lack of governments that they allow to rule or not rule them.
If they’re not responsible, then who is?