"getting rid" of terroists

I think many people are GREATLY underestimating the ease of ridding the world of terrorism and terrorists. It is not as simple as blanketing Afghanistan, Iraq, or (insert your least-favorite rogue state here) with nuclear weapons and pulverizing to dust every living thing within its borders. Someone in the Clinton state department made a statement to the effect that "for every bomb you drop, you kill 100 terrorists and create 500 new ones". This is a profoundly true statement. We are at war with the Hydra, and blind force, not matter how complete in its destruction, is not likely to defeat it. As Ray Zee mentioned, we need some insight in to why terrorists are being produced in these societies, and then ask ourselves some hard questions about what REALLY can be done to end it. Dropping bombs is the easist, but not necessarily most effective, answer.


There might not be anything as disturbingly satisfying to the human brain stem as the extreme use of force when its user feels completely morally justified in its application. Clint Eastwood, Arnold Schwarzeneger, and countless other imitators became Hollywood idols by appealing to this instinct. Adolf Hitler and bin Laden have become human anathemas in the same way. America must be both wiser and stronger than these in its decision to use (or not to use) extreme force in the coming months. I personally think we are warranted to do so, but we must pick our battles very carefully. We need Harry S Truman, not Jean Claude van Damme.

I agree. If every terrorist in the world were wiped out tomorrow, the economic and social conditions that produce people who have nothing to turn to other than radical theology would still exist and new terrorists would pop up in a few years.


While we can fight the proximate causes of terrorism with intelligence information and force, the underlying issues would best be fought with a marshall plan for the middle east/central asia.


Paul Talbot

I've contemplated this idea as well but I'm not sure about the details. As I posted earlier I believe a political solution is required as well as a military one. One thing we have to be careful of is that we could create a lot worse situation for ourselves by doing something that was ill conceived. Instead of having one bin Laden we could end up with 20.

***I think many people are GREATLY underestimating the ease of ridding the world of terrorism and terrorists.


...


we need some insight in to why terrorists are being produced in these societies, and then ask ourselves some hard questions about what REALLY can be done to end it. ***


While I think a solution to the overall problem should be sought, wiping out terrorist organizations (a problem which has not been given appropriate attention up till now, imo), would be much simpler than wiping out poverty and oppression worldwide. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fight poverty and oppression, it means that combating the current threat, which is organized terrorism, not random terrorists, should be a priority.


It is not true that if we kill bin Laden we may create 20 more bin Ladens. I think we should try to limit the collateral damage caused by any strikes, not out of some fear of creating more terrorists, but out of natural concern for the lives of innocent people. We cannot, however, be so caught up in avoiding collateral damage that we fail to accomplish our objectives. This is an area in which we have to trust our leaders to act in an effective, rational way.

>>It is not true that if we kill bin Laden we may create 20 more bin Ladens.<<


How do you know this for certain?

"It is not true that if we kill bin Laden we may create 20 more bin Ladens"


The sight of people dancing in the streets and the invective speech of young men leaving mosques all over the Middle East while the towers burned leads me to believe otherwise.