Prevention Is Better Than Cure
Do you remember those video games where your player was at the bottom of the screen while numerous 'baddies' flew downwards, and you had to stop any from reaching the bottom? It occurs to me that our current strategy in the "War on Terror" is only slightly more sophisticated than this.
We stop people from taking guns on planes, then knives, then scissors, now liquids. NYC police randomly search bags on the Subway, the government taps phones and locks up suspected terrorists, we all become paranoid and on edge.
In reaction to specific threats these measures are no doubt reasonable and justified. What is lacking, however, is any real understanding of why a young man would strap dynamite to himself and get on a train. We have failed to move beyond glibly simplistic answers like "terrorists hate freedom" and politicians do us all a great disservice when they recite this nonsense. It is beyond implausible to think that a man wakes up one day, says to himself 'I hate the fact that women in America can vote', and decides to blow himself up.
Conservatives may reject this kind of thinking because it seems to somewhat justify terrorism, but a little more thought could avoid this misunderstanding. Explaining is not the same as justifying, just as prevention is not the same as punishment. In terms of punishing people who plan to, or do carry out terrorist acts, the reasons that led them down that path are largely irrelevant. No reasons excuse terrorist attacks nor should they affect sentencing of convicted persons.
If, however, instead of simply reacting to the 'baddies' coming down the screen, we hope to stop them before they start, then intelligent, thorough, and impartial analysis of catalysts and greviances must be undertaken. There are many things that could be done to slow or even stop this wave of attacks. Glib recitations about God and freedom are not among them.
We should remember that in the video-game world, the longer you play the game, the harder it gets. I suspect the real world shares this characteristic.
We stop people from taking guns on planes, then knives, then scissors, now liquids. NYC police randomly search bags on the Subway, the government taps phones and locks up suspected terrorists, we all become paranoid and on edge.
In reaction to specific threats these measures are no doubt reasonable and justified. What is lacking, however, is any real understanding of why a young man would strap dynamite to himself and get on a train. We have failed to move beyond glibly simplistic answers like "terrorists hate freedom" and politicians do us all a great disservice when they recite this nonsense. It is beyond implausible to think that a man wakes up one day, says to himself 'I hate the fact that women in America can vote', and decides to blow himself up.
Conservatives may reject this kind of thinking because it seems to somewhat justify terrorism, but a little more thought could avoid this misunderstanding. Explaining is not the same as justifying, just as prevention is not the same as punishment. In terms of punishing people who plan to, or do carry out terrorist acts, the reasons that led them down that path are largely irrelevant. No reasons excuse terrorist attacks nor should they affect sentencing of convicted persons.
If, however, instead of simply reacting to the 'baddies' coming down the screen, we hope to stop them before they start, then intelligent, thorough, and impartial analysis of catalysts and greviances must be undertaken. There are many things that could be done to slow or even stop this wave of attacks. Glib recitations about God and freedom are not among them.
We should remember that in the video-game world, the longer you play the game, the harder it gets. I suspect the real world shares this characteristic.
posted by Sparx at 14:08
2 Comments:
"If, however, instead of simply reacting to the 'baddies' coming down the screen, we hope to stop them before they start, then intelligent, thorough, and impartial analysis of catalysts and greviances must be undertaken. There are many things that could be done to slow or even stop this wave of attacks. Glib recitations about God and freedom are not among them."
So, exactly what "many things" would you suggest? And will any--or all--of them involve interaction with terrorists? If so, how do you propose to safely interact with terrorists?
First off I wouldn't have invaded Iraq. It was well known that there was no connection between Saddam and bin Laden/Al Qaeda. With this piece of adventurism we made every terrorist recruiter's job easier.
Second we should ask ourselves under what conditions is a person susceptible to extremist propaganda. A mixture of poverty and fear of attack from a perceived threat to one's way of life will surely do it.
This kind of thinking doesn't involve sitting down and discussing things with terrorists. The most successful way to cut off terrorists' support is to marginalize them, not to prove them right by acting as they tell people we will (i.e. with more aggressive military 'solutions').
Terrorists thrive where civilian populations feel that they are their defenders or the solution to their problems. We'll never change that by exacerbating those problems.
Look at Northern Ireland. Thatcher took the 'hard line' and made things worse, Major then Blair took a more pragmatic approach and have had a ceasefire in place for almost a decade. The problems haven't all disappeared but they are more likely to under current conditions than with Thatcher's approach.
Thanks for reading
Post a Comment
<< Home