A Little Common Sense On Going To War Against Terror

In the wake of the Mumbai attacks, a natural human emotion is to want revenge for the deaths caused by the terrorists. India has talked about going after Pakistan and it scares the shit out of many because both have nuclear arms. At the very least, India will be going to fight the war on terror just as we began after September 11th. The only problem, as Rosa Brooks points out, "Terror is an emotion, and terrorism is a tactic." So what we need is a little briefing on history and a lot of restraint via common sense before we get our war on again.

From The LA Times:

Terrorism is nearly as old as humanity itself. In the 1st century AD, the Zealots of Judea began a series of covert killings of Roman occupiers and Jewish collaborators. The word "assassin" is thought to derive from "Hashshashin," the name of a Shiite sect active during the Middle Ages whose members donned disguises to kill their victims in public places. The term "thug" is said to come from India -- from the 17th to 19th centuries, a cult engaged in "thuggee," the mass strangulation of travelers in caravans. And like modern terrorists of all ideological stripes, these ancient Zealots, assassins and thugs succeeded in part by sowing outsized fear.

Mumbai should remind us -- again -- of the folly of the Bush administration's "war on terror." Terror is an emotion, and terrorism is a tactic. You can't make "war" against it. Even if meant as mere metaphor, "the war on terror" foolishly enhanced the terrorist's status as prime boogeyman, arguably increasing the psychological effectiveness of terrorist tactics. Worse, it effectively lumped together many different organizations motivated by many different grievances -- a surefire route to strategic error.

Like crime, terrorism will always be with us, and terrorist attacks will increase as long as we succumb to the panic they're intended to inspire. But if we resist the temptation to lash out indiscriminately, we can take sober steps to reduce terrorism through improved intelligence, carefully targeted disruptions of specific terrorist organizations and efforts to address specific grievances (such as disputes over Kashmir). With a new U.S. administration about to take office, isn't it finally time to say goodbye to the "war on terror"? After all, we already have two real wars to worry about.

You can't go to war against terror just as you can not win a war against drugs, or even poverty for that matter. "War" is such a strong word and here, it is a symbol leaders use that shows their subjects they'll be tough and fight whatever and whomever to make people feel safe. The only problem with that is we generally over-react and let bloodthirsty fools like George Bush invade Iraq. Brooks is exactly right when we need to take sober steps such as those she lists in that last paragraph.

If that new Administration really wants to reduce the chances of us feeling terrorized by the next attack (whenever that may be), then Obama's people must act rationally in their responses and long-term policy goals. Instead of warring, we need to work together as a nation and ideally as a planet to root out the causes for those that wish to terrorize others. Only then do we stand a chance of reducing our fears of another Mumbai, Madrid, London, New York, Oklahoma City and so on.