New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | March 6, 2006

Jeff Taylor looks at what's wrong with the government's outdated model of terrorism--and how to fight it.

Comments

|3.6.06 @ 11:30AM|#

As some of you may have noticed, I like to jump on the opportunity to liken the war on terror to the war on drugs. Maybe we can end two wars semi-simultaneously.
As Jesus should have said: terrorists we shall always have with us, just as we will always have wine-bibbers and and the general urge for mind alteration.
"Wars" cause the urge for mind alteration and the urge to terrorize.
The Catch-22 preventing us from preventing politicians from causing wars is that politicians, by definition, exist to do something; not just stand there.
Alas...
They could all learn a lesson from Garfield.

Larry A|3.6.06 @ 12:14PM|#

Notice that he graduated in psychology and philosophy. That should tell us something.

And obviously the government didn't have enough access to his library records.

Of course, I also happen to drive a Jeep, so that should tell us something else.

Just, please, don't anyone do any cartoons about the incident.

In the War on Terror, incoherence is our friend.

|3.6.06 @ 12:41PM|#

The term "war on terror" is just a copout because we won't admit that we are at war with radical Islam. Afterall we could never in our post modern PC age admit that any ideology other than say capitalism is evil or a threat. In one sense there is always going to be the occasional nutjob who shoots up a restaurant or runs over a group of people. There is no way to stop that. We can however stop one particular group who is openly pledging to destroy our society from doing so. You do that by removing that group from the society. Since we don't have the moral courage or backbone to do this (ban certain forms of Islam and kick their practioners out of the country) we fall back on abstract meaningless terms like "war on terror" and try to make ourselves feel safe by patting down 70 year old grandmothers at the airport.

|3.6.06 @ 12:51PM|#

You do that by removing that group from the society.

The only problem I see with that (well, the only one at the moment) is that you have to identify who the individuals of the group are before they have done something proving them to be a part of the group...I presume you are not talking about non-Radical Islamists, whoever they are.

And without devolving into a war of definitions, aren't we all explicitly presumed innocent until proven guilty?

|3.6.06 @ 12:58PM|#

How about concentration camps, John?

|3.6.06 @ 1:15PM|#

"The term 'war on terror' is just a copout because we won't admit that we are at war with radical Islam. "

Dead on... except for the part where Bush frequently says we're at war with radical Islam.

fyodor|3.6.06 @ 1:19PM|#

John,

You contradict yourself. You say we are at war with an ideology, then you say we shoud attack some particular "group." A group is made up of individuals, and ideology is not. There is no way to eradicate an ideology, but doing stupid things to groups of people who don't deserve it is sure a good way to bolster the ideology you're trying to attack. Look what happened to Christianity, for Chrissakes! You further reveal your own foolishness by comparing your belief system to one you acknowledge to be foolish: thinking capitalism is evil! Of course we should take action against anyone who conspires to do destructive things, and I have little problem with greater surveilance against groups more greatly associated with such individuals, within reason. But if we abandoned our belief in human rights and individual responsibility, how are we any better than "them" anyway?

|3.6.06 @ 1:27PM|#

To quibble with the point about grandmothers:

As long as we're doing airport searches, it is senseless to exempt any demographic group from searches. There is a long history of criminals taking advantage of the elderly. If criminals can talk semi-senile people into handing over their life savings, what makes you think that a terrorist couldn't con an elderly woman into carrying a small package in her purse?

I'm not convinced that airport searches are worth much, but if they're worth anything it makes no sense to exclude a demographic group. The bad guys will immediately find ways to exploit that loophole.

|3.6.06 @ 1:42PM|#

They could all learn a lesson from Garfield.

Big Fat Hairy Deal

|3.6.06 @ 1:56PM|#

I agree with John insofar as we have clearly violated rule #1 with respect to waging war: Know your enemy. If you believe "war" is the only solution to terrorism, then you ought to go about waging it properly. (Disclaimer - I don't think the "war" paradigm is any more proper in this context than in the WOD).

As such, turning the Kingdom of Saud, Syria, Iran, and most of the surrounding states into glass parking lots is logical end strategy. Failing to do so is failing to recognize that these states all actively provide support to your enemy - radical Islam (in fact, the Kingdom uses it quite ruthlessly to deflect criticism from itself).

As far as searching grandma issue - it's just another attempt to have other people pay for your benefit. Of course the majority of the country would be okay with imposing all the costs of security program on a minority. I like to suggest this program to those who enjoy profiling - Many, if not most, of the terrorists who have committed attacks on the United States have had military training, some even in the U.S. armed forces. So, a perfectly legitimate profile would be to single out those with any military background for secondary and even tertiary searches, preferably full body cavity probes (because you can never be too sure! TM) I'm perfectly okay with such a system, because it won't affect me at all, and it will make me FEEL a little bit safer, after all...

|3.6.06 @ 2:06PM|#

The term "war on terror" is just a copout because we won't admit that we are at war with radical Islam.

Most of the problem with that is the leaders of the people who call themseleves fundamentalist muslims use Islam as a copout because they won't admit they are at war with the Saudi Royal family.

|3.6.06 @ 2:22PM|#

They could all learn a lesson from Garfield.

President James? Or the cat?

|3.6.06 @ 2:38PM|#

There is an ideology out there that says that the entire world should be subordinate to a true Muslim caliphate. This ideology believes in a literalist interpretation of the Koran and believes that it is the Muslim's duty to kill or subjugate all non-believers in pursuit of the jihad to create this caliphate. There are people all over the world that preach this idea. They are in mosques and schools and on the streets. That is who we are at war with. Not every Arab or every Muslim believes in this ideology. Indeed, the governments you folks sight above don't support this ideology; however they are often complicit and have outright supporters within their governments. The issue is what we do in response to this ideology. We are not waging war on terror. We are waging war on this ideology. How do we best get rid of it and ensure that it is discredited and its followers are either dead, disheartened or in jail. In order to win this war we have to understand the question and what exactly we are doing first and declaring a "war on terror" is not doing that.

As far as the points about grandmothers, patting down grandmothers is a complete waste of time and counter productive to security. No security can be complete or be everywhere at once. The trick is to put the security at the right places. You do that by focusing on those groups who are most likely to commit the acts that you are trying to prevent. True, the enemy can always adjust and start using grandmothers or other non-suspected groups to carry out there acts. This, however is harder than it sounds. The movement's strength is young Muslim males. How exactly you find significant numbers of white grandmother's from the Midwest to join the ranks of the ideology seems to be a pretty good question. In addition, through good intelligence you can hopefully construct be on the look out lists and have some success staying ahead of their means and methods. The point is that subjecting the entire population to the same security check is pointless and counter productive. You have figure which segment of the population to concentrate your main efforts against and then hope you have picked the right group.

|3.6.06 @ 2:48PM|#

"You have figure which segment of the population to concentrate your main efforts against and then hope you have picked the right group."

John,
First you come for the "right" group.
Then ...

|3.6.06 @ 3:07PM|#

Ruthless,

By your logic we shouldn't do anything. I society has a right to defend itself. It does not have to sit around and wait for its enemies to come and destroy it. That whole first they came for the right group crap is cowardice writ large. If the Weimar Republic had had the courage to stand up the Nazis and yes come for the Nazis, we wouldn't have that often misquoted and misunderstood quote. The hard part of course is having the confidence to stand up and do something. The easy thing to do is to do nothing and let people like the Islamists and the Nazis hide behind your own fears and insecurities about your own society.

|3.6.06 @ 3:12PM|#

There is an ideology out there that says that the entire world should be subordinate to a true Muslim caliphate.

Acouple of questions John:

Does Saddam's Iraq fall under that category? If not, then why did the US invade Iraq as part of the war on terror?

Why is it the ideology that says that the entire world should be subordinate to a true Muslim caliphate is evil; but the ideology that says the entire world should be democractic or capitalist isn't?

fyodor|3.6.06 @ 3:24PM|#

By your logic we shouldn't do anything.

Whatever the merits of what Ruthless said, it is clearly fallacious to say that to oppose one particular action is to say "we shouldn't do anything."

|3.6.06 @ 3:25PM|#

Anon,

My point was not to discuss Iraq. I have certainly have argued that it is, but that was not the point of this thread. There is no point in rehashing the arguments over Iraq. My point was that we need to recognize our enemies and stop calling this a "war on terror". That point may in fact lead people to believe that invading Iraq was a mistake. If so, so be it.

As far as your point about why isn't Democracy and Capitalism not evil, you are perfect example of what I am talking about in the above post; someone who does not have the self confidence to see evil in front of you and stand up to do something about it. The fact that you have to even ask that question tells me that you have never been to a place like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan when it was under Taliban. If you had, you would never have wondered if perhaps Western is just as bad. Frankly, a lot of people in the West are scarier than the Jihadists. At least Jihadists believe in something. I may hate it and they may be in throws of an evil ideology, but you know where they stand. In contrast, many in the West who claim that capitalism/democracy is just as bad or worse believe in nothing other than their hatred of capitalism and the United States. The fact that you asked your question and can't seem to grasp the idea that it is better to live in a free democratic country than in a Muslim Theocracy tells me that you might be one of them.

|3.6.06 @ 3:27PM|#

Whatever the merits of what Ruthless said, it is clearly fallacious to say that to oppose one particular action is to say "we shouldn't do anything."


If you can't single out the group that is trying to destroy you, what exactly can you do other than join the other side, or do nothing and hope they go away?

fyodor|3.6.06 @ 3:29PM|#

John,

Perhaps the important factor here is that the ideology you cite is not our enemy. People who would commit atrocious acts of violence on behalf of that ideology are! So it's not just moderate Muslims who are not our enemy, but also radical Islamists who never do us any more harm than to spit whenever they hear America mentioned or chant slogans. Fine, let 'em spit and chant slogans. It's only when they kill people that I mind.

|3.6.06 @ 3:39PM|#

John,
Here's what you do.
My best buddy here is Waki Paki.
I don't piss him off.
I don't side with my government (which IS pissing him off).
I have no desire to piss off Waki Paki, because he's a nice guy.
How's that?
Mind if I give him your home address?

fyodor|3.6.06 @ 3:41PM|#

If you can't single out the group that is trying to destroy you, what exactly can you do other than join the other side, or do nothing and hope they go away?

Well, first of all, there have been no more 9/11's despite wasting our time on grandmothers. Now, there's a zillion conclusions and nonconclusions one can draw from that, not all of which I'm necessarily saying. All I'm saying is that not following your specific program is not the same as doing nothing, and especially not the same as (giggle) joining the other side! Prosecuting people who commit crimes and who are found to be conspiring to commit crimes is what we can do in lieu of deporting everyone who has any possibility of sympathies with fundamentalist aspects of Islam. And if that's not what you're advocating, perhaps you should be more specific. What are we arguing about, other than the dorky term "war on terror"? What I'm arguing against is your position as I've represented it here. If I've misrepresented it, feel free to correct me. But please, again, be specific about what it is you do advocate.

|3.6.06 @ 3:50PM|#

John,

It's like Julian said. Bush has said it and we all know it. But the idea that you can wage war on, well, an idea is as untenable as the idea that you can wage war on a tactic. The only next step in any declaration of war against an ideology is the creation of thought police.

The only thing we can do is try to find people who plan to commit acts of terrorism so we can stop and/or kill them.

fyodor|3.6.06 @ 4:06PM|#

Les,

Good post!

|3.6.06 @ 4:11PM|#

"The only thing we can do is try to find people who plan to commit acts of terrorism so we can stop and/or kill them."

Les,
How about stopping pissing people off?
Then we can run with the assumption they aren't planning terrorism.
Horse first, then cart.

|3.6.06 @ 4:29PM|#

You can't stop pissing people off because people get pissed off for irrational reasons that the "guilty" party is often unaware of.

fyodor|3.6.06 @ 4:31PM|#

Ruthless,

If what we're doing to piss them off is unscrupulous, then we shouldn't be doing it anyway. If it's not, then it's questionable whether not doing it will truly affect their behavior. So maybe that renders useless the using of that specific criterion.

|3.6.06 @ 4:32PM|#

Ira,
Have you read exactly what it is pissing off Osama?
They never sounded like anything I was in favor of my country doing in the first place.

|3.6.06 @ 4:39PM|#

Horse first, then cart.

What are you, some kind of radical? ;)

|3.6.06 @ 4:42PM|#

Your post reminded me of this morning's commute when i noticed a guy taking up more than one seat on the train while reading hte paper, and another guy obviously annoyed at guy 1 for bad manners. Guy 1 was totally oblivious to the pissed off mindset of guy 2.

I don't want to debate the rights and wrongs of OBL, but you can't worry about pissing people off since someone will always be pissed off at you for some reason.

fyodor|3.6.06 @ 4:52PM|#

Ira,

I see myself as vaccilating on this depending on what precisely seems to be meant. On one hand, you're right that it's impossible to insure that you never piss someone else off. OTOH, if what you're doing that pisses them off can be shown to be a bad thing in its own right, then the anger it causes, and especially the RETALIATION it results in, can be seen as a good lesson in why we should not to bad things to others.

|3.6.06 @ 4:57PM|#

The problem with a war on an ideology is that you cannot force people not to think something. Granted the government in Orwell's 1984 seemed to have discovered a way (torture) to control thought, but hopefully we can all agree that this too extreme. It is possible to use force to prevent certain actions, but you can't really kill an ideology with force. The only real weapons that we have against dangerous ideas are logic and reason. I think promoting democracy abroad is a great idea. But it's something that we will only accomplish by proving it's superiority; trying to force someone to believe something will always fail unless you have a giant box with rats in it.

|3.6.06 @ 4:59PM|#

Ira and fyodor,
Miss Manners for President!

|3.6.06 @ 4:59PM|#

Well, there is a difference between doing somehting you know will piss someone else off and unintentionally pissing someone off.

My example of someone taking two seats on a train may have the sitter unaware he's affected someone else, but also acting in a manner that was likely to piss someone off.

I'm not a fan of people who intentionally annoy others, but I also have little tolerance for people who get pissed off at unintentional mistakes.

Gene Berkman|3.6.06 @ 5:03PM|#

Maybe we can revise the quote to point out the benefits of pre-emption:
"First they came for the Communists, and I said right on! because I am not a communist;
Then they came for the Nazis, and I said right on! because I am not a Nazi.
Then they came for the radical Islamists and I said right on! because I am not a Muslim.
When they came for me, there was no one left to applaud them."

fyodor|3.6.06 @ 5:28PM|#

John Rhoads,

Good post. But don't forget that it wasn't just torture that swayed our good friend Winston, but rather systematic torture as part of the full processs of what is known as brainwashing. To have the ability to brainwash an entire population, you need the type of control only found in what we love to call a totalitarian society. And even totalitarian regimes failed in real life to have the effect so ominously predicted by Orwell. So even if one doesn't think that selective torture is too extreme (and, after all, those who think thus do walk, and post, amongst us), one would need to advocate a totalitarian regime more extreme than any ever experienced in the real world to eradicate an idea. Hopefully even the torture-lovers (kidding!) amongst us would think that too extreme!!

Larry A|3.6.06 @ 5:35PM|#

Ruthless: How about stopping pissing people off?
Then we can run with the assumption they aren't planning terrorism.
Horse first, then cart.

Larry: Excuse me, Mr. Terrorist. What are we doing to piss you off?

Terrorist: Infidel! You cut your hair! You allow your women to drive! You don't pray enough! You don't pray in the right direction! You eat bacon! <100 similar iterations> And you don't herd sheep!

Larry: Yeah. I'll get right on that.

|3.6.06 @ 6:58PM|#

In contrast, many in the West who claim that capitalism/democracy is just as bad or worse believe in nothing other than their hatred of capitalism and the United States.


My point is that forcing democracy on others is as bad as forcing any other ideology on them. I believe that people should just butt of and leave me alone. Why should I be happy to have you bomb my house so that I and others in my village can have the right to vote? I didn't want to vote in the first place.

If you think that killing me for the good of scoiety is worthwhile, then, I wholeheartedly disagree.

As for your point for living in Saudi. I'll say this, if I'm given the choice to choose between living in Iraq or Saudi Arabia, I'll definitely choose Saudi Arabia.

|3.6.06 @ 7:34PM|#

I society has a right to defend itself.

Socities don't have any rights whatsoever. Individuals have rights. And under any other circumstances, YOU would be the first person to say that.

Brian Marks|3.6.06 @ 7:52PM|#

No matter what the US does it will piss off somebody.

The War on Terror was originally used to prevent pissing of Muslims right after 9/11. The term has outlived its usefulness since we are now cinducting a War on Radical Islam. At some point we will have a War on Al Qeida and at somepoint, pick up Osama Bin Laden or in the government's case Usama Bin Laden if the can decide which person is the correct person by his library records.

|3.6.06 @ 8:36PM|#

From a column by Murray Rothbard:
First published in the Libertarian Party News, March/April 1986.

"Terrorism" has been made The Issue of the Year, for which Americans are expected to tighten their belts, pay countless billions in taxes so the U.S. government and its allies can arm to the teeth, and suffer an escalating repression of their liberties.

Yet who the terrorists are supposed to be remains vague and shadowy. Their only apparent common characteristic is that they are swarthy and foreign; no Nordics need apply.

|3.7.06 @ 2:05AM|#

fyodor,

Whatever the merits of what Ruthless said, it is clearly fallacious to say that to oppose one particular action is to say "we shouldn't do anything."

Yes but --

Perhaps the important factor here is that the ideology you cite is not our enemy. People who would commit atrocious acts of violence on behalf of that ideology are! So it's not just moderate Muslims who are not our enemy, but also radical Islamists who never do us any more harm than to spit whenever they hear America mentioned or chant slogans. Fine, let 'em spit and chant slogans. It's only when they kill people that I mind.

So in other words, the only "anything" we're allowed to do is react? All we can do is play police man?

After they kill a bunch of us, then we'll try to catch those specific individuals.

You really don't think any other action is justified, do you?

It is a war. But this isn't the way to fight it.

|3.7.06 @ 2:09AM|#

Ruthless,

Have you read exactly what it is pissing off Osama?
They never sounded like anything I was in favor of my country doing in the first place.

Are you really one of those sops who actually believes what OBL says? I'd thought you were smarter than that....

|3.7.06 @ 2:14AM|#

Phil,

Socities don't have any rights whatsoever. Individuals have rights. And under any other circumstances, YOU would be the first person to say that.

Are you sure your name isn't Ayn? And either way, tell me how it is that Country A can declare war on Country B in the conventional sense, if what you're saying is strictly true.

|3.7.06 @ 8:43AM|#

"Worse, official Homeland Security doctrine, along with billions in flat-out pork, has pushed ever more lethal weapons in ever more hands around the country. This is exactly the opposite of security. Every deputy sheriff in America with access to a full-on military arsenal creates another target of opportunity for those quick minds."

Jeff, guns don't kill people. Terrorists kill people. ;-)

Larry A|3.7.06 @ 9:41AM|#

And either way, tell me how it is that Country A can declare war on Country B in the conventional sense, if what you're saying is strictly true.

People with individual rights come together to form government A, for the purpose of protecting those individual rights. If, in order to protect the individual rights of its citizens, it becomes necessary for Country A to go to war with and defeat Country B then that's what Country A should do.

It's all spelled out in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution.

|3.7.06 @ 12:12PM|#

So remind me again what your point above was...

fyodor|3.7.06 @ 2:26PM|#

All we can do is play police man?

In the current situation, yes. Bear in mind that good policing includes seeking and reacting to information about crimes being planned. And if the situation changes, if a foreign nation credibly harbors people interested in committing acts of violence against Americans, that can be grounds for war against said nation. But there's no current justification for the mass deportation advocated by John. Pity if that's what you require to feel as if we are "doing something."

|3.7.06 @ 8:32PM|#

fyodor,
"good policing" is an oxymoron except in the military sense of having a defined outdoor area thoroughly free of litter.