The House of Saud Is No More.
A post at NRO's The Corner got me thinking. A reader had emailed John Derbyshire providing a framework of all possible responses to terrorism:
1. Do what they want. If their goals are limited and discrete, and the cost of giving into their demands is less than the cost of resistance, complying with the terrorists's demands solves the problem. Here, terrorism works.
2. Do nothing. Accept a certain level of death and destruction indefinitely. Use criminal law within your own country to punish who can catch, and that's all. It's hard to say whether this means terrorism is 'working' or not. Since the terrorists aren't really suffering any consequences and they're inflicting casualties, I say terrorism is working here too.
3. Kill every last terrorist and eliminate the breeding grounds for terrorists. Probably the most expensive option. You have to send military or paramilitary forces all over the place, angering lots of people and suffering casualties. It takes a long time and you're never really sure when you're done. The terrorists may eventually be defeated, but it costs plenty of blood and treasure. Does terrorism work here? Beats me.
4. Make the cost of terrorism to the terrorists much greater than the benefits. For example, carpet bomb or nuke something important to them if they attack. If you're credible, this is a very reliable method. Problem is, credibility means you have to do it once, killing thousands or tens of thousands of noncombatants. Definitely a case of terrorism not working.
Nobody in the West is willing to do #4, and of the few who are capable of doing #3, most of them don't bother. So, if most countries are generally using only #1 and #2, and #3 is uncommon and a wash anyway, then it's only natural that terrorism, on the whole, works.
Here's my thought. Post-Madrid Spain is #1, pre-Bush (read Clinton) America was #2, and only Blair's Britain and Bush's America are truly doing #3. Why aren't we contemplating #4 in a particularly focused way? We know that Saudi Arabia is funding Wahabbism world-wide. We know that 15 of 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. We know that Bin Laden is Saudi, etc. Why doesn't President Bush say essentially the following? "We are tired of living in fear of terrorism. We don't like it. We know that the House of Saud is either behind the terrorism, or has funded the madrassas that teach terrorism, or else looks the other way at terrorism. We think they could go a long way toward stopping terrorism if they made the effort. So here's what we're going to do. The next time a terror attack hits an American city or an American ally's city, we are going to put a 5000 lb. cluster bomb on top of every palace of every member of the House of Saud. Put bluntly, if we get hit even a little bit, the House of Saud is no more."
I like saying this. My dad used to say this in every semi-crisis about every potential enemy, except he wanted to use nuclear weapons. "If X, then Pyongyang is no more." "If Y, then Hanoi is no more." "If Z, then Tehran is no more." My way would keep it simple and non-nuclear, and, with the advances in technology, would limit damage to the Saud royal family -- despots that they are -- and their hangers-on. Terrorism might work for people who don't mind living in caves in far corners of the world. But we can certainly make in not work for people like the House of Saud, since we know where they live.
Heck, it might even push that vicious dictatorship toward democracy. The 101st Airborne is about ready for another takedown, and they're just next door.
1. Do what they want. If their goals are limited and discrete, and the cost of giving into their demands is less than the cost of resistance, complying with the terrorists's demands solves the problem. Here, terrorism works.
2. Do nothing. Accept a certain level of death and destruction indefinitely. Use criminal law within your own country to punish who can catch, and that's all. It's hard to say whether this means terrorism is 'working' or not. Since the terrorists aren't really suffering any consequences and they're inflicting casualties, I say terrorism is working here too.
3. Kill every last terrorist and eliminate the breeding grounds for terrorists. Probably the most expensive option. You have to send military or paramilitary forces all over the place, angering lots of people and suffering casualties. It takes a long time and you're never really sure when you're done. The terrorists may eventually be defeated, but it costs plenty of blood and treasure. Does terrorism work here? Beats me.
4. Make the cost of terrorism to the terrorists much greater than the benefits. For example, carpet bomb or nuke something important to them if they attack. If you're credible, this is a very reliable method. Problem is, credibility means you have to do it once, killing thousands or tens of thousands of noncombatants. Definitely a case of terrorism not working.
Nobody in the West is willing to do #4, and of the few who are capable of doing #3, most of them don't bother. So, if most countries are generally using only #1 and #2, and #3 is uncommon and a wash anyway, then it's only natural that terrorism, on the whole, works.
Here's my thought. Post-Madrid Spain is #1, pre-Bush (read Clinton) America was #2, and only Blair's Britain and Bush's America are truly doing #3. Why aren't we contemplating #4 in a particularly focused way? We know that Saudi Arabia is funding Wahabbism world-wide. We know that 15 of 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. We know that Bin Laden is Saudi, etc. Why doesn't President Bush say essentially the following? "We are tired of living in fear of terrorism. We don't like it. We know that the House of Saud is either behind the terrorism, or has funded the madrassas that teach terrorism, or else looks the other way at terrorism. We think they could go a long way toward stopping terrorism if they made the effort. So here's what we're going to do. The next time a terror attack hits an American city or an American ally's city, we are going to put a 5000 lb. cluster bomb on top of every palace of every member of the House of Saud. Put bluntly, if we get hit even a little bit, the House of Saud is no more."
I like saying this. My dad used to say this in every semi-crisis about every potential enemy, except he wanted to use nuclear weapons. "If X, then Pyongyang is no more." "If Y, then Hanoi is no more." "If Z, then Tehran is no more." My way would keep it simple and non-nuclear, and, with the advances in technology, would limit damage to the Saud royal family -- despots that they are -- and their hangers-on. Terrorism might work for people who don't mind living in caves in far corners of the world. But we can certainly make in not work for people like the House of Saud, since we know where they live.
Heck, it might even push that vicious dictatorship toward democracy. The 101st Airborne is about ready for another takedown, and they're just next door.
posted by PDB at 12:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home