« Advisory Opinion Needed | Main | Okay, But... »
Why Not Victory?
Julian Sanchez expresses the bien pensant consensus that Bush was right to say that you can't win the war on terrorism, and that Kerry was right to say that you can't eliminate terrorism, you can only renounce it to nuisance levels. Perhaps they'll revoke my bien pensant card for saying this, but I disagree. Why shouldn't the world be free of terrorism? It was until fairly recently, and even today the number of terrorist attacks isn't very high. It will take some time, but I don't see why a decade or two of solid counterterrorism efforts by military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies combined with international cooperation, increased global prosperity and freedom, the resolution of some major outstanding political conflicts, and a shift in demographic structure toward fewer yound people shouldn't eliminate the deliberate targeting of civilians by non-state actors.
UPDATE: Obviously, everyone's all upset about this and the calls for me to retract are proliferating. Instead, I'll issue a promisory note for a longer essay explaining my thinking and probably not to be published for a little while since I'm busy with election-related stuff and I'm climbing up a mountain of reader skepticism on this issue. In essence, though, the number of what you might call terrorgenic conflicts is not large and has never been large and there's no reason to think that such conflicts cannot be eliminated.
October 12, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83456f54769e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why Not Victory?:
» Winning the War on Terrorism from The Cardinal Collective
Matthew Yglesias thinks the war on terror is winnable, unlike John Kerry. He forgets Oklahoma City. And the Beltway snipers. And possibly the anthrax attacks. The war on terror is just as unwinnable as the war on drugs or the... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 12, 2004 11:42:21 PM
Comments
"...It was until fairly recently,"
Explain this, please. Perhaps there are nuanced definitions of 'terrorism', but I think we've had it, one large or small scale, for a very long time. Whatever they've been called: anarchists, rebels, 'freedom fighters', etc., it seems like we've always had terrorists in one form or another. Unfortunately.
Posted by: Matt (not MY) | Oct 12, 2004 9:09:08 AM
Hey, Harvard. It's "reduce to nuisance levels."
Posted by: Kyle | Oct 12, 2004 9:11:57 AM
"Why shouldn't the world be free of terrorism?It was until fairly recently."
Fairly recently, if you figure the Civil war wasn't all that long ago, I suppose. But the world hasn't been free of terrorism during MY lifetime, and I'm no spring chicken.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Oct 12, 2004 9:12:18 AM
I should say that perhaps we're working with two definitions of terrorism here, but I still think that we've had this sort of thing around a lot longer than "fairly recently." That's all.
Posted by: Matt (not MY) | Oct 12, 2004 9:12:51 AM
probabilities:
solid counterterrorism efforts: 75%
international cooperation: 66%
increased global prosperity: 66%
and freedom: 66%
resolution of some major outstanding political conflicts:66%
fewer young people: 50% (don't see why this is necessary, but hey)
Chances of success: 7%
Posted by: Troy | Oct 12, 2004 9:14:43 AM
It was until fairly recently.
What are you talking about. There has been terrorism in the world since at least the first century A.D.
Posted by: davidk | Oct 12, 2004 9:15:09 AM
Why stop at terrorism? Let's eliminate murder, kidnapping, and rape.
Posted by: djLicious | Oct 12, 2004 9:15:15 AM
Mathew, you're just too young to remember the recent past. Terrorism was a constant lethal presence in Europe and Asia all through the 70's, 80's and 90's. The Tamil suicide bombers in Sri Lanka, the IRA bombers in England and Northern Ireland, the Red Brigade in Italy (and the provocateur bombings carried out by rogue units of the Italian secret police), terrorist gangs in Germany, Basque terrorists in Spain, and of course, Abu Nidal and a host of other terrorists in the Palestinian cause. The list is practically endless. For that matter, low intensity domestic terrorism has changed the face of America. Abortion providers in this country regularly wear bullet-proff vests, check their cars for boms regularly, and try to hide their families for fear of terrorist attack.
Posted by: Paul Gottlieb | Oct 12, 2004 9:18:34 AM
"Why shouldn't the world be free of terrorism? It was until fairly recently . . ."
John Brown? Publius Clodius Pulcher? Judith (the Biblical one)?
Posted by: rea | Oct 12, 2004 9:19:29 AM
"the deliberate targeting of civilians by non-state actors."
I propose to distinguish terrorism from crime or banditry the clause "...for political purposes." be added. Maccabees vs Barbary Pirates?
At what point does terrorism become war? Thinking Indian Wars, Late Rome, East or West, etc.
Anyway, been around a long time. Samson burned the fields.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Oct 12, 2004 9:26:22 AM
I'm joining the others here who are befuddled by your statement, Matt...
How exactly has the world been without terrorism, especially recently? In the US we have had several terrorist incidents, both domestic and foreign for at least the last decade. They were not as spectacular as 9/11 (although I'd argue that Oklahoma was), but we had them. True, before the 1990s incidents in the US were more rare, although Americans abroad have been consistent targets, And, of course, there have been terrorist incidents in Europe and the Middle East for far longer. I spent several years in London during the late '70s, and there were several terrorist attacks by the IRA against shoppers. It wasn't that anybody was afraid to go to Harrods to shop, but the possibility of an attack was there, in the back of everybody's mind. There was a certain uneasiness. The uneasiness that goes with nuisances.
The main differences from earlier decades are how far more spectacular terrorist attacks are now, America itself (as opposed to just Americans) is a target, mere airplane hijackings are not in vogue, and Islamic terrorist groups are better organized, more fanatical and more effective than before.
The only instance I can recall from world history where a non-state near-universal threat was eliminated due to well-coordinated military action was Pompey's 67 B.C. campaign against Mediterranean pirates. I think it took 49 days to kill or catch them, but of course that was not the end of piracy. In the same way, even if we were to duplicate Pompey's feat and sweep the world, East to West, eliminating terrorist groups (extremely improbable), terrorism will not disappear as a tactic. We can't very well catch them all, and other groups with the same or other grievances, in other parts of the world, will continue using terrorist tactics. Kerry's right. The best we can hope for is to reduce terrorism to nuisance levels.
Posted by: Aris | Oct 12, 2004 9:27:54 AM
Once a year the Spartans declared war on the Helots, who were their captive, subjugated people, who outnumbered the Spartans by about 7 to 1. During this time, Spartan youths were required to live off the Helots by murdering them and robbing them. The declaration of war made it legal, but did not stop it from being terrorism. Any outspoken Helots were the first to go.
That's at least 2600 years for state sponsored terrorism.
Posted by: Njorl | Oct 12, 2004 9:31:10 AM
Matt, dude! You really need to just take this post down, man. Or put an update renouncing it outright. I read your post, thought, "I've got to comment on this 'until fairly recently' nonsense," but now I see that EVERY ONE of your commenters has done the same thing. Maybe you'd just woken up or something. Or you can blame it on the hazards inherent in blogging: no editor or anyone to bounce stuff off of who will tell you when you're just forgetting whole swaths of history that refute your point.
Posted by: pdp | Oct 12, 2004 9:34:39 AM
However, to defend Matthew. It is necessary for those who argue with him to explain why terrorism isn't universal.
What are the conditions that reduce or eliminate the desire or need to resolve conflicts with violence? We have some terrorism in America(abortion clinics, Puerta Rican nationlists) but very little.
For my own part, I have been thinking why we don't have many more Tim McVeighs or Charles Whitmans. I would, looking at easy means, population density,human nature, etc, expect a lot more.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Oct 12, 2004 9:35:38 AM
The only instance I can recall from world history where a non-state near-universal threat was eliminated due to well-coordinated military action was Pompey's 67 B.C. campaign against Mediterranean pirates. I think it took 49 days to kill or catch them, but of course that was not the end of piracy.Admittedly, until the development of chemical explosives, automatic guns, and other Engines of large-scale destruction it was hard for a small group to inflict significant damage on a large group in the way that terrorists since 1880 have been able to do.Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Oct 12, 2004 9:39:47 AM
Your definition is of nonstate actors targeting civilians is predicated on another itemsuch actions are done for the promotion of a political cause or assymetric warfare. It would seem that you could end terrorism by elimating the potential ends of terrorism. We dot not have many instances of terrorism as political gesture in the West these days, for example, because there are better means for achieving those ends available. Were democracy to flower in the Middle East (assuming, also, that brings about more of the population finally getting a piece of the pie), ME terrorism ought to shrink. It's totally reasonable.
Posted by: Kriston | Oct 12, 2004 9:47:43 AM
> It would seem that you could end terrorism
> by elimating the potential ends of
> terrorism
Have you even been a first-line supervisor of a good-sized group of people? The president of a community organization in a diverse community (particularly one undergoing change)? A mediator in a labor dispute where both sides have some good arguments?
Human beings, particularly in groups, can ALWAYS find a reason to be unsatisfied and unhappy. And given enough time and agitation, they can be persuaded that the wrongs against them are so great that they must take up arms against their oppressors.
Just because the Northern European-type societies are having a good run of rational decision making at the moment doesn't mean that things couldn't explode 10 years from now.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Oct 12, 2004 9:55:30 AM
I'll give Matt the benefit Of the doubt on assuming he understands that terrorism existed in the '70s, but, yeah, barring a ridiculously expansive definition of "recently", terrorism has been a "nuisance" for a very long time. Modern explosives gave it more teeth, but in the form of things like the KKK its been a presence in America for a century and a half, and elsewhere for longer.
Can we eliminate extranational terror attacks on the US? Perhaps, for a time, but unless there's some way to eradicate terrorism as a tactic, it'll always be with as in some form.
Posted by: Nick Simmonds | Oct 12, 2004 9:59:49 AM
hey, what's everybody all cheezed about? alls we gotta do is tidy up dat Israel-Palestine thing, set up some Starbucks and satellite dishes, and badabing, badaboom, kiss and make up, everybody's happy, no more bad boom boom.
Next up: the war on drugs can be won!
Posted by: luddite | Oct 12, 2004 10:13:06 AM
I have to agree with the above posts, Matt. We can alter the calculus to raise the costs and diminish the perceived benefits associated with terrorism so that a rational actor will likely eschew the tactic, but terrorists are not typically fully rational actors. We can never eliminate peoples' tendencies to make faulty cost/benefit analyses. No matter what we do, highly motivated individuals and groups will continue to seek and find the means and oppotunities to blow themselves and others up in the name of one cause or another.
Posted by: Donny | Oct 12, 2004 10:14:38 AM
I have to join the chorus here and say that your statement that terrorism is a recent phenomenon is completely naive. Even if you want to use the Bush definition of terrorism-someone attacking an American for any reason-you would still have to go back a long way in US history (read since we were founded) to not find any examples.
Granted, this type of terrorism wasn't as prevalent, or should I say as noticed or known-about, in earlier days, but it was there nonetheless. What do you think much of the savagery visited upon white settlers by certain tribes of native americans was all about? I would guess that much of it was an effort to terrorize white people into leaving. Of course, it did not work, as it often doesn't.
If you want to get as technical as possible and define terrorism as "violence against non-military persons designed to achieve a political ends", you still will find examples going back into the mists of time. Even if you want to limit it further and state that officially recognized (nation)state sanctioned violence can't be considered terrorism, you have to remember that nations didn't really exist in any substantial sense until the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 when all the kings got together and decided to call eachother nations. Before that, there were no recognized nations, so any violence against civilians (which there was plenty of) for political purposes was terrorism.
Fundamentally, those people that are labeled terrorists (and those that probably should be) are either (1) so twisted and corrupted by their experiences that they've lost all recognition of what it means to be human; or (2) so devoid of hope that any solution, even suicide killings, seem like a good idea compared to the slow, inexorable death that they think awaits them if they do nothing.
Evil people (e.g. osama bin laden) have always existed and will always exist. Thus, terrorism by them cannot be stopped.
Billions of people throughout history have been bereft of hope and have chosen violence as an answer. It would be possible to ensure that all people had hope, but extremely inprobable given the state and structure of the world. Thus, terrorism cannot be stopped.
If you are serious about being honest with yourself, admit that this post was a mistake.
Posted by: aeneas23 | Oct 12, 2004 10:17:26 AM
It is very hard to imagine reducing terrorism without implementing some type of supervision or other such nuisances.
Posted by: theCoach | Oct 12, 2004 10:24:43 AM
In essence, though, the number of what you might call terrorgenic conflicts is not large and has never been large and there's no reason to think that such conflicts cannot be eliminated.
The explanation should make interesting reading. I can entertain the possibility of a policy that could, at great expense, eliminate all currently operating terrorist groups.
To eliminate "terrorism", you'd have to establish an environment in which it would no longer be the method of choice by the side of a conflict that is too weak to strike military targets. They'd invariably prefer something else instead. What? Surrender? Exactly how you propose to accomplish this is the part that I'm very eager to hear.
Once you have terrorism out of the way, perhaps we can attack slavery and genocide next. Despite their fall into disrepute, they have not yet been eliminated either.
Posted by: Paul Callahan | Oct 12, 2004 10:31:30 AM
[Generic comment adding to the pile-on.]
[Three specific cross cultural examples of terrorism.]
[Snarky addition explaining this is why Harvard is a dangerous place.]
Posted by: jerry | Oct 12, 2004 10:40:52 AM
I would like to second what Cranky and Nick said. Terrorism has been around for a very long time, but its rising popularity as a weapon followed the development of technologies that allowed terrorists to do significant amounts of spectacular damage - dynamite, C4, jet fuel, etc.
Another accelerating factor is modern mass communications. The target of terrorist acts is rarely just the victims themselves, but the wider population that views the acts and is "terrorized" by them. Without efficient and rapid communications, the "propaganda of the deed" loses much of its point.
A third factor is the growth of republican or democratic government. It is pointless to attack the noncombattant citizens of country A if country A's policies have little to do with the desires of its own citizens.
Also, democratic and participatory government makes it easier for would-be terrorists to cross the psychological barrier to killing ordinary people, by blurring the lines between combattant and non-combattant. If the citizens of some country have actually voted to empower the government that is carrying out the aggressions you oppose, then they you might see them (at least the voting adults) as fully responsible for their government's actions.
Posted by: Dan Kervick | Oct 12, 2004 10:47:42 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
