The Most Glamorous Failure

Last week, I wrote an article saying that "terror" is a state of mind, and it has to be conquered in the mind, not on the battlefield. I still believe this. However, since then, I have gotten a number of responses saying that the issue is one of semantics, and the real enemy is "terrorists", who can be hunted down and destroyed. I disagree with these people.
The problem with this view is also one of semantics. Many, if not most, terrorists are suicide bombers. When people who have enemies (and face it, everyone has enemies) use a tactic called "terrorism", they become "terrorists". But in most cases, they also become dead. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. The good part is that the terrorists are dead. The bad part is that our larger struggle isn't against terrorists. It's unfortunate, because if all we had to worry about was making sure the terrorists were dead, it would be so easy.

But the real struggle is a larger one against terrorism as a tactic. Conservatives are right to say that the war on terrorism is not a "war on drugs" kind of war. But it's not a "war on Japan" type of war either. Terrorism is a style of fighting that benefits the outmanned. In general, it's used by groups without standing armies because its the kind of tactic thats bad for countries, and good for fringe groups that oppose them.

Now, I have more good news and more bad news. The good news is that it is possible to fight against a tactic. We as a country have fought tactics before -- sometimes successfully (see nuclear nonproliferation), and sometimes unsuccessfully (see guerilla warfare/Vietnam). The bad news is that it takes a lot mor patience and a lot more cooperation than fighting an actual enemy.

Now, fighting terrorism here at home is actually something the U.S. has been working on for a while now. And on the whole we were actually pretty successful until some time in 2001. We know they were successful for two reasons:
1) They existed (it's in the public record)
2) We never heard about them.

See, successful counterterrorism is not the kind of thing for writers and politicians to build careers on. Writers and politicians cannot build careers on successful counterterrorism -- it's just not glamorous. Counterterrorism is the kind of thing poeple only notice when it fails. It's a pretty mundane job, pouring through evidence until you find something substantial, getting warrants, arrests, strings of painfully similar court cases. It's ongoing, but it worked for 15 years.

Now, perhaps in response to a dramatic counterterrorism failure like we saw not too long ago, we should go after the problem of terrorism abroad. But remember, we're still fighting a tactic, not a concrete, attackable enemy. So a war is right out (Although apparently a few candidates for president don't understand this).

But knowing how well the mundane, unglamorous counterterrorism programs worked for most of their history, it seems logical to extend the same program abroad. A large number of terrorist groups, which includes some of the "major players" in the U.S. eye are aimed mostly at overthrowing domestic governments (i.e. Al Quida/Saudi Arabia, Islamic Jihad/Egypt, PLF/Israel, etc.), and when they attack us, they do it by association.

So why not go to the governments where these groups are located, rather than attacking them, and say "Hey, it looks like you're having problems with terrorism. We're pretty good at counterterrorism. Why don't we help you implement the same program in your country".

There are ways to successfully fight terrorism. But then again, failing is so much more glamorous.

No Comments! Be brave and leave the first one!:

Name:
Email:
URL:
Comment:			/ Textile
Enter this code:
( Register your username / Log inChange Settings for )
Notify:		Yes, send me email when someone replies.
Small print: All html tags except <b> and <i> will be removed from your comment. You can make links by just typing the url or mail-address.