My thoughts about the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01 and our response to them start with the idea that American is a pretty good country. I'm an American, I can be expected to feel that way. And certainly the US has had its share of flaws and errors, some of them very deep (like slavery). But I think if you take a deep breath and look at it objectively, America as a country has done much more good than harm, especially when compared to other international powers of the 19th and 20th centuries. And if you strongly disagree, if you really believe America is a truly bad or evil country then I feel very sorry for you, because you are either irrational or you are the enemy of my country.

As a basically good country our initial response to terrorism has been to apply our laws and rules to it, with due process and the criminal justice system. When it affected one of our allies we encouraged them to negotiate, to talk out the problem, enter into dialogue, etc. Sure, there've been lapses, but the overall track record has been good. Unfortunately, I think Tuesday's attacks are proof that that strategy has failed.

I think Tuesday is proof that when we urge restraint, terrorists see weakness. When we apply our laws, terrorists cry oppression. When we treat terrorism as a form of crime, we end up bound by our system of rules and due process. Meanwhile Tuesday is proof that terrorists won't play by any rules other than those guaranteed to create the greatest human suffering and destruction imaginable.

By any reasonable standard, Tuesday's attacks were an act of war. Oh sure you can quibble the legal definition but I think we all know what I mean: these attacks were against our homeland, in our backyard, against our people, and were so massive that they threaten us all. We the populace of the US have been attacked, our personal and national security has been badly threatened. Terrorists have essentially waged war against us. I think the time to treat terrorism as a crime is over: the only rational response to 9/11/01 is a military response of a scale usually associated with war.

For all intents and purposes we are at war with terrorists. If we don't accept that, then the terrorists will remind us, early and often. Having seen the "glory" of Tuesday's attacks, you can bet there are other groups just itching to hit us as hard. If we don't defend ourselves, we will simply label ourselves the biggest target on the planet.

Many people say "violence only begets violence" which is partially true. Sometimes reacting with violence will provoke a violent response. But if you look at world history, you will see that there is something that begets a lot more violence: weakness. Weakness invites attack: this is born out again and again in our past. When there are people out there actively hating us, actively considering us evil tyrants, then our weakness just emboldens them. If we don't wage war on terrorists, rest assured they will wage war on us. They've already started on Tuesday, and the arrests in NYC on Thursday seem likely to be evidence that their campaign against us is continuing.

The alternative to war is surrender, and I can't imagine how bad that would be. First off, since the terrorists have not identified themselves or made demands, even if we wanted to surrender to their demands we couldn't. Also, given the viciousness of the attacks, it seems likely their demand is that America be destroyed. So even if we wanted to wimp out, that's not an option.

Being at war with terrorism, the question is how to wage it. It's a new kind of war without clear borders, clear targets, and without well defined enemies. The danger of that kind of war is that if we can't find the correct enemies soon enough we will start making them up (like attacking innocent Arab-Americans) or even worse we turn on ourselves as enemies (by taking away our vital privacy and civil rights).

So the first step is to define the enemy and the objectives of the war. I think the enemy has to be identified terrorist groups along with the countries and populations that harbor, support, train, and hide them. The objectives should be to destroy the terrorists and convince the countries and populations that support terror to stop, by force if necessary.

Once we've identified the targets, we then need to destroy the terrorists. If the regimes harboring them will not either help us, or get out of the way, and if basic diplomatic efforts fail, then we have to destroy the regimes harboring them as well.

By hiding in "innocent" populations, Terrorists have used our morality against us. However given the severity of the attacks against us, I think it is reasonable for us to expect populations harboring terrorists to be disgusted with the terrorists and to become unwilling to support them. If the populations refuse to condemn the mass destruction of innocents and refuse to turn the terrorists over to us (or at least get out of the way) then I think we have no choice but to consider them as accessories or co-conspirators with the terrorists. That means that if governments harbor the terrorists and won't cooperate after some reasonable diplomatic attempts, then they have to be considered our enemies as well.

And that leads to the hardest and worst part of my thinking: if we can't destroy the terrorists using legal means, and we can't destroy them with precision strikes, or commando raids, then we may have to prosecute war against them to the fullest. The terrorists used jet planes as weapons of mass destruction: they caused thousands (and possibly tens of thousands) of innocent civilian Americans (and others) to die, often in horrible suffering, burning, suffocating, crushing, leaping 1000 feet to doom, etc. That means that the military response to terror has almost no limits. They used weapons of mass destruction. That takes the gloves pretty much all the way off.

If necessary we have to consider very heavy use of force to destroy the terrorists, their bases of operations, and most importantly their ability to sustain themselves. This means destroying the governments that harbor them, the governments that fund them, and in extreme cases the populations that give them aid. That means at the most extreme end of things, we have to consider using all of our military power, including nuclear weapons.

Reasoning with terrorists, negotiating with terrorists, making concessions to terrorists, have all failed. Because their hateful idealogies keep them from seeing as human beings, they don't hear us when we talk to them. The only language they speak is fear and death. To defend ourselves against terrorists, we have to destroy as many of them, and those who aid, fund, and support them, as possible, and we have do it so forcefully that it creates a strong effect of intimidation against all others who would use terror against us.

It is true that such violence will beget some violence in return and it is also true that many terrorists are so fanatical they don't fear death and cannot be intimidated in this fashion. That's true, we have to deal with it. That means we have to kill so many of them that the remainder are too few to be harmful. We have to destroy so many that even the new recruits their deaths will spawn are outnumbered and overwhelmed by the number we kill.

If we don't we leave ourselves open to attack, in fact based on the twisted psyche of terrorists, if we don't respond, we *invite* attack.

So the bottom line is a bad one, we have to kill a lot of people. We have to destroy a lot of things. We will probably have to spend a great deal of wealth and maybe even many American lives. We may, depending on the military necessity, have to use ground troops. We may, depending on circumstances have to carpet bomb, or even, if absolutely necessary, use nuclear weapons. If we don't take the lives and destroy the property of the terrorists, it will be our lives being lost and our property being destroyed down the road, with no end in sight.

I'm not happy about this, I'm not ranting with patriotic fervor, and I'm not a bloodthirsty sort by inclination. But I think cold hard logic and the events of this week show us that we are in a War on Terrorism and we have to prosecute it to the absolutely maximum extent.

Daniel Ban aka Sharpe

In a world where nuclear weapons are "common" its possible that these terrorists have some. According to this article, within 10 years (if not already), terrorists can have the ability to use nuclear weapons. Its also reported, though uncomfirmed, that the Russians have some uncounted suitcase sized nukes.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/19990123gallucci3.asp

It's possible bin Laden has some suitcase nukes.

Just a thought, but what if bin Laden has secretly threatened the US with nuclear reraliation on a US city if we ever even move a finger to take him out. Its a possibility that scares the hell out of me.

Even if bin Laden doesnt have any... there will be a time when a terrorist does (or biological).

etc

Well thought out post. We shy away from the implications of a war on terrorism, but war means just that, the massive application of deadly force. No rational person likes or welcomes war, but our experience shows that sometimes only the use of force will address the issues at hand.

The United States has, for sometimes good reasons, limited itself in the past to "proportional" responses, almost exclusively using indirect means like cruise missiles, or at most air attacks on specific installations. Well, even a "proportional" response to Tuesday's attacks would be massive, but the point is that sort of tit for tat has proven precisely useless. Just as to get Saddam out of Kuwait we needed to field a half-million man army of coalition forces, to attack international terrorism we will need a substantial and sustained military response.

That response will have to deal with sanctuaries and enablers as well as actual terrorist actors. Killing bin Laden or whomever isn't enough. You have to erradicate governments and organizations that back people like him. You have to make it so costly (in economic, political, and if necessary in military terms) for nations to support murdering thugs that they will, out of self-interest, stop doing so. We have to become, if necessary, bigger and badder than the bastards who are intimidating nations into allowing them sanctuary.

That may well, and probably will, require us to undertake military actions that are well beyond what we've been used to. It will include ground forces, the only military means that can actually take, occupy, and sanitize ground locations. It will cost us lives, of our servicepeople, and it will cost lives of people in the countries we operate against. That too is tragic, and underscores the horror of war. The alternative, however--constant attack, terror, fear, paralysis--is even worse.

Bob's post is spot on. We, Americans, have had the luxury of being spoiled. We have practically unlimited freedoms and we have been able to make symbolic gestures (such as a few flights of cruise missiles)and read about them while drinking our morning coffee, feeling safe from any real repercussions.

Now we realize that our utopia isn't as insulated as we had hoped. There are a lot of folks (including myself) who fear for loss of privacy or freedoms, to some extent. We've never before had to make the decision: if the choice is truly a loss of some of what we consider freedom or remain vulnerable to such attacks, what will our choice be? If the cost of agressively eradicating that terrorism that is organized is weathering some retribution, are we willing to bear that?

What price is America willing to pay to attack and eradicate organized terrorism? We are so used to being able to have it all, to never have to pay any price.

"You have to make it so costly (in economic, political, and if necessary in military terms) for nations to support murdering thugs that they will, out of self-interest, stop doing so. We have to become, if necessary, bigger and badder than the bastards who are intimidating nations into allowing them sanctuary."

But we're talking about a peoples who have no homeland, the Palestinians. They have refugee camps. What are you going to do -- take those from them?

The Israelis have been just as brutal as the terrorists, and they haven't deterred terrorism at all as far as I can tell.

What are we going to do? Are we going to reenact the My Lai massacre and murder Afghan villages wholesale if they don't turn out members of their community who are terrorists? I can't support that.

These people have nothing but their lives and their zealotry. Most homes in Afghanistan don't have running water.

Short of slaughtering entire groups of people, I don't see how we can root out the terrorists. I'm sure we'll get many, but won't many new ones arise from the embittered ranks of Moslems who feel persecuted by the U.S. military actions?

Maybe the great sacrifice we need to make needs to also be made by the Israelis. Maybe we need to give up some of our territory and offer to let the Israelis found a new Israel within our borders? Maybe we establish Jerusalem as an international city open to all but otherwise encourage the Israelis to leave the Middle East.

I know, something like this would never happen, but I don't think there will ever be peace over there as long as Israel exists.

Mark, I see your point, but I think you're off the mark. For one thing, the Palestinian Authority is not sponsoring the sort of terrorism we are facing. They may or may not sanction attacks on Israel, but while some terrorists we face may be Palestinian, they aren't operating from Palestine. The people we're talking about are sheltering in Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, the Sudan, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, but not AFAIK on the West Bank.

And no one is talking about destroying Afghan villages. That is what the USSR tried, and it didn't work (in addition to being immoral). We're talking about governments, national entities. Governments that harbor terrorists have to face destruction of their military forces, their technical and political infrastructure, and their economy. In short, they have to face war. In the case of Afghanistan, which has no economy, infrastructure, or much of anything else, the target has to be the Taliban leaders themselves. They can hardly be considered innocent civilians.

You would never, ever want to "slaughter whole groups of people." You want to do enough damage to states that harbor terrorists to force them into expelling them, and in making sure no terrorists set up camps and bases within their borders. Without safe havens, this sort of terrorism will be much less effective and dangerous.

And as for your notion of resettling the Israelis (in Texas? Montanta?) in the US, well, I'll give you points for chutzpah at least :-0.

Frankly, when you read about the Jewish zealots who are crossing over and setting up roadblocks and machine-gunning Palestinians, you have to wonder how there will ever be a resolution in that area. Two passionate peoples who both feel they have a religious and nationalistic right to the same land, a land considered holy to both of them. With Arafat, a known and acknowledged backer of terroristic massacres across the world, I have to lean to the side of Israel, but I don't think either of them really want a peaceful resolution - certainly not a compromise.

"You would never, ever want to "slaughter whole groups of people." You want to do enough damage to states that harbor terrorists to force them into expelling them, and in making sure no terrorists set up camps and bases within their borders. Without safe havens, this sort of terrorism will be much less effective and dangerous."

How much damage do you have to do to the Palestinians to get them to stop terrorist activity? It seems to me that Israel has done a tremendous amount of damage to them and not deterred them a jot. And I know, Bin Laden isn't a Palestinian.

We need to find and control all the Mideast peoples who hate the U.S. if we really want to stop terrorism, or we have to change their minds about us.

Here's another solution. We go in, get Bin Laden and some other leaders to soothe our national pain, and then we withdraw all support from Israel and remove most of our Mideast military presence -- let them sort out their own problems, in other words. I'm not in favor of that, but I imagine it would remove the U.S. as a target of a lot of Arab-sponsored terrorism.

The root of the problem is the Arab-Israeli conflict and how the U.S. is perceived in that conflict. We either figure out how to resolve the conflict or remove ourselves from it, or I suspect we'll continue to be the target of attacks no matter what we do with our military force in the Mideast.

Er, when I wrote "Mideast" I meant "Middle East."

Well, I disagree that the root of the problem is the US stand on the Israeli issue. The root of our problem with the Islamic radicals is our very existence, as a secular, capitalist state and a cultural and ideological opposite pole. We could retreat to isoloationism tomorrow and they'd still want to kill us.

Besides, it's not just our support of Israel. It's our buying of oil from the Gulf, and consequent military involvement there (an involvement we cannot ever discontinue as long as we import oil from the region). It's our export of movies, McDonald's, Nikes, books, TV, and whatnot that distracts kids from the Koran. It's our outrageous insistence on separation of church and state, and our refusal to acknkowledge a particular brand of radical Islam as the one true way. It's all these things that put us on their shit list.

I do agree, though, that the Israeli approach to Palestinian terrorism has been ineffective. The Israelis were very effective when the terrorists were attacking specific targets for specific political aims. What's happening now is suicide attacks for the express purpose of killing Israelis. Most Palestinians are not involved in this, but the Palestinian authorities are not willing or capable of stopping the activity. Ultimately, though, the Israelis can't stop it--only the Palestinians can. They have to turn on these people. The way to make that happen is to discredit them, and to make harboring them dangerous. If other actual states pay a price for harboring Islamic Jihad and Hamas and whatnot, eventually the folks in the West Bank and Gaza will, possibly, realize the no-win aspect of supporting such groups. Israeli flexibility would help, to be sure.

I don't have an answer for the Palestinian situation. It's not the same situation we're in, though. Theoretically the Israelis could simply say, ok, here's your piddling state, take East Jerusalem as a capital, but by God we're going to hold you to your promise of no terror. That would I think work.

Mark, I think you overstate the ability of desperate people in distant lands to engage in terrorist activities against people here in the US. The Israelis haven�t been able to suppress terrorism very well because they live in and among the people who would carry out these acts. Between the settlements, Jerusalem, and day labors entering Israel itself, preventing terrorist access to civilian settings is impossible. The terrorists who struck the US, on the other hand, apparently required a fairly sophisticated infrastructure. This involved passports, safe houses in Germany, Canada and Florida, pilot training in the US, training facilities in Afghanistan, lots of money, and a friendly country where it could all be planned and organized. Ripping out this infrastructure by the roots will not be pretty as pointed out above, but it will make fairly impotent the murderous impulses of that minority in the Middle East willing to conduct suicide attacks.

Steve

"We need to find and control all the Mideast peoples who hate the U.S. if we really want to stop terrorism, or we have to change their minds about us."

A picky point, but I'll make it anyway - there are a lot of folks who hate the U.S. that still would not approve of what was done by these cowards.

'But we're talking about a peoples who have no homeland, the Palestinians. They have refugee camps. What are you going to do -- take those from them?

The Israelis have been just as brutal as the terrorists, and they haven't deterred terrorism at all as far as I can tell.'

The Palestinian movement is funded, actually, by Egypt, Syria, Saudia Arabia, etc; the rich Arab countries of the area. It'll be interesting to see what sort of long-term effect Tuesday will have there.

"What price is America willing to pay to attack and eradicate organized terrorism? We are so used to being able to have it all, to never have to pay any price. "

Sorry, but I can't go with that. We are used to safe borders, true. But we've ended up paying horrible costs in two world wars, our own civil war, and in operations far away. It is also true that not every American is affected by each of these things. But in times of war, we are all affected. In WWII U-boats were sinking ships in sight of New York harbor. Everyone knew lots of people in harm's way. We just haven't experienced it recently, is all.

To Mark:
"But we're talking about a peoples who have no homeland, the Palestinians. They have refugee camps. What are you going to do -- take those from them?"

The trouble here is money, not refugees, as far as I can tell. We are talking, in this last attack, about 20-30 or more terrorists, being supported and educated in America for over a year in preparation for this. That costs a lot of money, especially when you consider that they probably had extensive, and expensive, training before they ever came here. A friend of mine is a counter-terrorism person, and he tells me that 90% of terrorists have either a college degree, or at least considerable college-level education. Those aren't people in refugee camps.

I think like an American, I'll freely grant, which means that I look at things logistically. What's it cost? How do you support it? What's the return for your investment? Without serious financial and intellectual support, terrorists can't function. That money comes from governments, and in a lot of cases, probably from our own foreign aid. I believe that if you cut off the support, and I mean REALLY cut off the support, by making it too scary for nations to support these guys, then they will become ineffectual.

It's the whole "make it scary" bit that worries me. Right now, the major sponsors of terrorism in the world are Lybia, China, Iran, Iraq, Jordan and Syria. Sorry, Bub, but great nations DO sometimes support terrorism. Do we threaten China if they don't stop supporting terrorism? Does anyone want to see us go at it with China? I can't even calculate the human cost of such a thing. That's the part of the "war on terrorism" that concerns me. I think we'll see an example being made, with the hopes that it will make everyone else stop, but I don't know what the follow-up will be.

"The terrorists who struck the US, on the other hand, apparently required a fairly sophisticated infrastructure. This involved passports, safe houses in Germany, Canada and Florida, pilot training in the US, training facilities in Afghanistan, lots of money, and a friendly country where it could all be planned and organized. Ripping out this infrastructure by the roots will not be pretty as pointed out above, but it will make fairly impotent the murderous impulses of that minority in the Middle East willing to conduct suicide attacks."

Yeah, maybe. My worry is that a new terrorist infrastructure will arise, maybe more than one, to take its place. Maybe the next attack is handled by by a few people who sneak in from Canada and poison a water supply? It might be hard to pull off anything on the scale of what happened Tuesday, but there are plenty of deadly attacks that can be made without involving a lot of people, a lot of training, and a lot of money.

It's unrealistic to think that we can keep terrorists out of our country. We can't keep drugs out of our country. A terrorist can be someone who's never yet committed a crime and has a legitimate visa. Maybe the terrorist is a chemistry major who spends his first couple of years in an American college just fitting in and getting access to the materials he needs to fashion a chemical weapon before striking. How do we protect ourselves from these kinds of possibilities? Not allow Middle Eastern peoples in our country anymore? Let them in but constantly watch them? Or afford them the kind of freedom that we want for ourselves?

Long-term, I think the U.S. needs to try to address the root of the problem, which I still think is the Arab-Israeli conflict and our perceived involvement in it. Reactionaries like Bin Laden might hate the U.S. regardless, but they attack us for being in the Middle East and supporting goverments they consider to be illegal and immoral. I'm not saying we should withdraw from the Middle East, but we need to try to build some bridges as well as destroy some.

""What price is America willing to pay to attack and eradicate organized terrorism? We are so used to being able to have it all, to never have to pay any price. "

"...But we've ended up paying horrible costs in two world wars, our own civil war, and in operations far away."

True, but I was talking about our generation. As Shapiro points out in today's column, post-Vietnam we have lost far more safety workers (poilice, fire) than we have military folks in all of the combined operations since that time. Our every action is measured by the ability to avoid blood shed. Which is certainly something I'm all for - avoiding the loss of lives. But are we willing to accept that the war upon which we are about to embark is likely to not be as "clean" as we have become accustomed to?

"Reactionaries like Bin Laden might hate the U.S. regardless, but they attack us for being in the Middle East and supporting goverments they consider to be illegal and immoral. I'm not saying we should withdraw from the Middle East, but we need to try to build some bridges as well as destroy some."

I couldn't disagree more. How do you explain bin Laden's attack on Somalia? That "action" was a humanitarian effort to help feed starving people!

I think, Mark, that the mistake you're making is expecting a normal, sane, logical decision from someone who is just not operating on the same plane.

I look at it like racisim. If some group of people were deadset to get you because of your ethnicity, would you say: lets try to understand the point of view of these racists; lets try to change who and what we are so as not to offend these people who are so hateful of us. Hardly. I think it goes way beyond mere policy in the Middle East.

-Tim

"I couldn't disagree more. How do you explain bin Laden's attack on Somalia? That "action" was a humanitarian effort to help feed starving people!"

Bin Laden viewed the U.S. presence as an occupying force in a Moslem country.

"Bin Laden viewed the U.S. presence as an occupying force in a Moslem country."

Right, but you know that's a made up point to justify his agenda, yes?

But lets forget about bin Laden's agenda for right now and focus on your point. What is your point? Are you're saying that it was wrong of the US to have performed a humanitarian effort in a Moslem country simply because it's a Moslem country? That, in addition to pulling out of the Middle East, the US should take care not to peform any types humanitarian aide based on whether the country is Moslem country?

I don't have a point, other than to answer your question about the reason behind Bin Laden's attack on US forces in Somalia. The guy views us as the enemy and he doesn't want us in Moslem countries. We support Israel, have a military presence in Saudi Arabia, etc. We're very much mixed up in the affairs of the Middle East.

Does that mean I agree with Bin Laden? Of course not. He's not a lunatic though. Just a cold-hearted bastard.

Yes, I understand that you're not defending bin Laden, Mark. I didn't mean to imply that you were. I'm trying to show that there really isn't much of a way to work with a madman.

Earlier you said "we need to try to build some bridges" and suggested we pull back from Middle East negotiations. When you say that, it sounds like you're suggesting we negotiate or somehow give bin Laden what he wants.

I just don't think that's realistic given that he's completely fucking insane.

"He's not a lunatic though. Just a cold-hearted bastard."

Didn't notice this at first.

We may have to agree to disagree. His actions in Somalia indicate to me that he's not after reasonable solutions that benefit Muslims. He's simply got an agenda against Americans that he wants fulfilled. Period. Reason isn't involved. To me that indicates insane.

Are you saying that his is a legitimate gripe? And that somehow we, as a country, should try to meet his demands?

And, again, I understand you're not defending him. I'm just trying to fathom where you're going with your policy solution.

Nah, I just mean that he's not irrational. I don't think he's like Khaddafy or Hussein, who seem more out of control at times. Bin Laden seems to be quite shrewd.

We can't negotiate with the guy. We need to kill him.

'We can't negotiate with the guy. We need to kill him.'

You know, I'm opposed to the death penalty, but that's for criminal cases. International terrorism is in some area between criminal activity and war, so I'm not overly sure whether he should be killed or not. Killing an opposing nations military is acceptable in war, and he might as well be the leader of his own army. Something to think about, at any rate.

---

Quote:

We can't negotiate with the guy. We need to kill him.

---

"Will someone else take his place? Possibly."

As someone else noted elsewhere, he's fairly unique. We'd probably be in much less danger of orchestrated attacks like the one on Tuesday with Bin Laden gone.

Aw, come on, Mark. Don't half-quote me!

I guess I didn't make it clear enough -- that "I don't know" was pretty skeptical. (Unfortunately, it's hard to reflect skepticism with written word...) I agree, Mark. I think taking this guy out -- assuming, of course, that we know he did it (which is a pretty safe bet, but we need to be absolutely certain) -- would make the situation a whole lot better. Might not totally solve the problem, but I don't think the chances of there being another bin Laden are any better than there being another Hitler. Real nut-balls are, fortunately, pretty few and far between.

There have been a few responses in this thread from people uncertain that we need to be as harsh and forceful as advocated in my initial post. Although I respect the right of folks to agree to disagree I can't help but feel that some people here just don't seem to appreciate the situation we're in.

To single out an example, Jason McCullough said

"You know, I'm opposed to the death penalty, but that's for criminal cases. International terrorism is in some area between criminal activity and war, so I'm not overly sure whether he should be killed or not. Killing an opposing nations military is acceptable in war, and he might as well be the leader of his own army. Something to think about, at any rate."

It is one thing to be opposed to the death penalty (I'm opposed to it in the US on the ground that our implentation of it sucks). However where I think people get hung up is in treating terrorism as a form of crime, something we normally handle under the rule of law.

I've made the argument that the scale of these attacks rise to the level of an act of war. But even if you are unable (or unwilling) to call it "war", this is clearly something more than normal crime.

Specifically, at the very very least, this is a situation of national self defense. Under our laws, when someone is trying to kill you, you are allowed to kill them first. Bin Ladin wants our country destroyed and this is the important thing, BIN LADIN WANTS US DEAD. The fact that he has attacked the US government and civilians on repeated occasions, along with the thousands (maybe tens of thousands) dead at the WTC are proof of that.

And here is the part some people don't seem to get, and this is the part that makes me sound so harsh: BIN LADIN WANTS TO DO IT AGAIN. Given his resources and his recent "successes", HE WILL DO IT AGAIN. Do not doubt that for a second. So far none of his policy goals have been accomplished: we haven't changed any stances in the middle east, we have not withdrawn our "tainted" troops from the muslim Holy Land, we have not abandoned Israel, we have not ceased being a Western democracy with vast wealth and "evil" influence on muslim youth. None of what Bin Ladin has stated he wants in past interviews, has been accomplished, and given the national moods, none of what he wants is going to be accomplished at this time.

Bin Ladin is going to come back for more. If he cannot intimidate us, terrorize us, frighten us into withdrawing all of our "evil, tainted" influence from the Middle East, then he is going to try to KILL us. And there are others like him, who will no doubt be inspired by his "success".

This is NOT a situation for agonized moralizing about how to justly and morally apply the rule of law: this is a situation of national self defense.

My entire focus is NOT on "punishing" terrorism: I am advocating DESTROYING terrorism before it destroys us. Sadly, its an "us or them" situation, a self-defense situation.

If you can think of a workable alternative solution that will protect our lives and property without surrendering our basic national character, I'd love to hear it.

I understand the sincere desire of many people that we humans will "rise above" violence. Unfortunately that time has not yet come: Bin Ladin and his terrorist ilk are clearly using terror and violence as offensive weapons,on a scale of mass destruction. The only sane response is vigorous self defense.

Daniel Ban

"This is NOT a situation for agonized moralizing about how to justly and morally apply the rule of law: this is a situation of national self defense."

I'm not worried about the law. I'm worried about killing innocent people, about radicalizing even more Arabs into anti-US positions, and so on. I think we need to go in and get Bin Laden, but it's a situation that's fraught with peril, and not just to our troops.

Apropos of nothing, when every elite in the United States cram themselves into the National Cathedral and sing The Battle Hymn Of The Republic, it's a probably a safe bet the country's on the verge of blowing a serious amount of stuff up.

I've had that blasted song stuck in my head all day. Argh.

I watched that and wondered what the security around the building was like. I bet it was surreal. Most of the Federal government was in that church.

I heard Sec of Def. Rumsfeld speak on one of the news programs this morning. He was quite authorative and articulate. When asked whether going to war against organized terrorism didn't carry some risks, he was pretty blunt. The basic answer was, Yes - there are risks, and preventing some guy from putting a bomb under his jacket and entering a mall is very, very difficult, more difficult than preventing the type of attack we had this past week. But, he noted, what are the options? Do nothing, and allow these people to orchestrate further such attacks? Or change America's way of life, the freedom under which our society is based, by taking all of the measures that would be required to prevent such an attack if we allow them to exist as they currently do? His conclusion was that some things are worth fighting for, even if there is some cost.

He was much more articulate than my paraphrasing. ;)

Yeah, I agree. We need to fight this, but we need to do so in a way that doesn't create new enemies.

"We need to fight this, but we need to do so in a way that doesn't create new enemies."

100% agreed. In many ways, this may be the most difficult challenge the US has ever faced - certainly far more complex that facing a standard war against a standard enemy.

I agree with both of you. Most of the adversaries we've ever faced were partially shaped as the consequence of another action we took. It would be very easy for folks not yet involved but already angry at or envious of us, whether rightfully or not, to swing over into active hostility if we don't handle things right.

That the governments of developing and oil nations support and sympathize with us only tells us that the most powerful people in those countries support and sympathize with us. Many of them are more or less dependant on our outside aid, either nationally, commercially or though the IMF.

I think that if we can mobilize as a people for a war effort we also need to put our heads together as a people and decide what it means to be a world leader and what responsibilities we have to those nations we'd set an example for.

Right now it's far too easy to see the US as an absentee landlord profiting from a degree of misery in many developing countries. Cheap labor and vital resources seem more important to us than our ideals at times, at least to me.

If we're going to stop terrorists from finding followers we need to understand what drives them to it. You don't see Falwell and Robertson out bombing Hollywood studios. They've got full bellies, bank accounts and self respect.

'Right now it's far too easy to see the US as an absentee landlord profiting from a degree of misery in many developing countries. Cheap labor and vital resources seem more important to us than our ideals at times, at least to me.'

Vital resources, yes, but I'm not sure how we're supposed to forgo cheap labor. It's not like it hurts third world countries when we buy stuff from them. Anyway, I think the US is just starting to realize that there's no need to support dictators anymore to hold off the communists.

Both Cheney and Rumsfeld refused to rule out nuclear strikes today. Whoo boy.

"You don't see Falwell and Robertson out bombing Hollywood studios. They've got full bellies, bank accounts and self respect."

And Bin Laden is poor? Come on, MONEY drives these terrorist organizations more than anything else. The supporters aren't poor, yeah, maybe the masses in the streets are, but the big boys behind it are filthy rich. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous.

I think "lack of democracy and functioning capitalist economies" has more to do with what drives these people than raw money. I don't think it's coincidental that the more democratic and free-capitalist a country is in the area, the smaller the problem they have with insane fundamentalists.

What was the first country in the region to agree that Israel had a right to exist? Egypt, the most democratic of the lot. All the authoritarian regimes maintain their stranglehold on power by manipulating the masses when it comes to national defense and war.

"It's Israel's and the West's fault that you're all so poor, not my dozens of kleptocratic cousins in government positions."

I think "lack of democracy and functioning capitalist economies" has more to do with what drives these people than raw money. I don't think it's coincidental that the more democratic and free-capitalist a country is in the area, the smaller the problem they have with insane fundamentalists.

What was the first country in the region to agree that Israel had a right to exist? Egypt, the most democratic of the lot. All the authoritarian regimes maintain their stranglehold on power by manipulating the masses when it comes to national defense and war.

"It's Israel's and the West's fault that you're all so poor, not my dozens of kleptocratic cousins in government positions."

"What was the first country in the region to agree that Israel had a right to exist? Egypt, the most democratic of the lot. "

Egypt also had a lot of land in Israeli hands that they wanted back. And let's not forget that the Egyptian President that went with it, Anwar Sadat, was assassinated within a year of recognizing Israel.

Authoritarian regiems hold power through controlling wealth and the standard of living. Most countries that get a middle-class of over about 9% start running into trouble keeping control.

I think 'free-capitalists' are making a pretty good mess of things on their own these days. Why are we in the middle east at all? Oil. Why do we need armies in the region if the Soviet Union is no longer a threat? To keep the regimes friendly to our oil interests in power regardless of what their people want. Lord knows we don't want democracy. What if they elected folks we don't like? Iran did that once and we felt obliged to force a coup that put the Shah back in power.

What we need to do is get off oil. We need to find other ways to go about business here. The technology exists. I wonder if we could calculate lives-per-gallon of gasoline the way we figure miles-per-gallon and if that would help us understand what it is we perpetuate.

Yeah, I'd sell my car I think.

If this sounds unrealistic or costly just imagine what we're going to be spending on this upcoming war. It may be a war we must fight and we do have just cause to prosecute it but until we splash ourselves with a bit of cold water and take a long look in the mirror and at our world we'll never be the people we think we are and we'll always wonder why 'crazies' hate us.

I think you're underestimating the amount of oil based infrastructure in the US. God only knows what it'd be in capital costs; the US capital stock is currently valued at 20 trillion, and a *lot* of that would be touched in some way.

http://www.dismal.com/top25/introduction.asp

Every car, boat, and airplane would require changes of about half the original cost. You'd need to completely throw away most of the entire well/pipeline/refinery/distributor/convenience store supply chain.

Eventually the market will do all this when a cheaper alternative for energy pops up. Until then the Middle East might as well sell us oil; it's not as if they have anything else to lead export-driven industrialization with.

Found this on Brad Delong's webpage. Scroll down for Charlie Stross's post, which is quite good, even though I quibble around the edges with it:

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Clippings/living_in_infamy/living_in_infamy3.html

Sorry, I did not mean that money motivates terrorists, rather that money allows them to do the things they do.

Jason, that's the best damned article I've seen on the subject. It jibes with what I know but puts much more perspective on the situation than I'm able to. I've sent him a note asking for permission to send it along to my local newspaper.