Your points in your last post are valid... but don't address my question. I understand the threat posed by jihad-minded Muslims, but does "terror" and its effects on the victims go beyond labels or denominations? More to the point, do labels compound the problem by creating more issues than they solve?
Using the Norwegian killer as an example again, I'd answer at least one of your questions with a YES: Did he intend to overthrow the existing democratic government and replace it with a Christian theocracy? His 1,500 page manifesto certainly seems to indicate that his intentions ran along those lines. But his intentions aren't where the problem lies... its in his actions and the effects of those actions on his fellow citizens.
Many people are unhappy with the existing government of this country, including many millions of Americans... yet no rational human being would condone what McVeigh did in 1996. That was terrorism, pure and simple. The Tokyo Subway attacks of '95 were the same, and resulted in 12 dead, more than 900 injured and 5,500 people hospitalized... "terror", pure and simple.
Were either of these "worse" than the '93 WTC bombing? Was the "intention" of that bombing anything other than "terror"? Even 9/11 was planned and executed to give the maximum amount of chaos and confusion, and not to overthrow the democratic government of the US. They wanted to hurt us... to cripple us and make us less of a "superpower" globally... but even those sick and twisted enough to plan and execute such efforts didn't imagine it would destroy the US entirely.
Now, where I am entirely in agreement with Ryan (and most of the established conservative movement in this country) is in the FACT that an act of terrorism committed against the US and her citizens is a legitimate casus belli, and should draw the full legal, economic, military and political reaction from the US onto those responsible for the terror, or those harboring the terrorists.
More and more, though, I am wondering if fighting a "war on terror"... where the primum hostium is terror itself, rather than a nation, state or organization utilizing terror as a means of war... is something we can hope to win. Its fine as stated policy, I guess... but as a committed, on-going combat objective, I don't see it as something we can sustain for any extended period of time beyond what we already have, and I see no measurable success in our efforts to date.
Now, I can see Ryan melting down as he reads this. Yes, we removed the Taliban from power, and reduced al Qaeda to a fraction of their former ability and influence across the globe and the region. Yes, we removed Hussein and helped establish a democratically elected Iraqi government were none had ever existed before. Both of these efforts were wildly successful (no matter what the Left says) and both were in specific response to threats and/or actions taken against the US directly. Neither can be shown to have reduced the likelihood of a terrorist attack anywhere in the world, however... on the contrary, a good case can be made that they have increased the likelihood of such attacks, at least locally and regionally.
So, I see wild success in responding to direct attacks and threats of attack from nations/organizations that utilize or support terrorism as a legitimate arm of war (arma bellica, to continue my meager Latin stretches...), but no measurable success in fighting and winning the broader and more general "War on Terror" that we still hear so much about.
And, FINALLY, to return to my original point and question... has the broad and general efforts to date contributed to such attacks as what we have seen so recently in Norway?
No comments:
Post a Comment