1. Go after the terrorists directly. Continue the ongoing effort to boost our intelligence-gathering abilities, so we can root out terrorist cells and choke off terrorist financing. This includes the less noxious parts of the Patriot Act, allowing law enforcement and intelligence communities to share information. We also need to hone our strike and raid capabilities so that we can effectively act on the intelligence we receive.
2. A homeland focus. If they can't get in, they can't attack us, so the bulk of our anti-terror money should go to domestic security – ports, airports, borders, etc. Such spending pays other dividends as well, tightening the defenses against smuggling and illegal immigration. This category includes investing in alternative energies, mass transit and conservation, because reducing our reliance on oil (and especially foreign oil) will reduce our need to become enmeshed in volatile regions of the world, as well as reduce the political influence of oil-rich countries.
3. International cooperation. Work with foreign intelligence and law-enforcement agencies to infilitrate and destroy terrorist cells. Work with foreign militaries to spread the burden of military operations. Isolate and destroy regimes that are active supporters of terrorism, using a clearly-drawn definition so that every nation is aware which side of the line they are on.
4. Foreign aid. It does no good to kill terrorists if we don't change the conditions that generate them: oppression, poverty, hopelessness, lack of education, lack of opportunity. We spend a paltry $18 billion a year on foreign aid; we should double or triple that number and target it on areas and issues related to terror. This means ending support for repressive regimes in the Middle East and devoting money to promoting education, democracy and opportunity in the region. Even if we spend $50 billion a year on foreign aid, it would be cheaper than the staggeringly expensive war we're currently pursuing. And you get a lot more PR benefit out of building schools than you do from dropping bombs.
Sean Aqui writes on political and religious topics for ZeroHQ.
Article comments
1 - tommyd
Excellent posts, thank you.
However, just remember that WAR is the HEALTH of the STATE. Rich men get richer by starting wars and having the poor people do the fighting and dying. The USA is nothing but a corporatocracy of oligarchs who profit from the death and destruction of war.
This American war machine needs "enemies" to justify it's profiteering. No enemies, no war, no money$$$$.
Hermann Goering at the Nuremburg trials said, paraphrasing, "the people can be led to do the bidding of it's leaders. Just tell them their under attack, call the dissenters "traitors" and war is absolutely necessary. Works in a democracy, dictatorship, or communist country".
Fascist America has risen, but sadly, because of it's worshipping of greed and money over life and truth, will find itself in the dustbin of history like the other nations that tried to enslave it's own citizens by fear.
2 - Nancy
Excellent blog, & tommyd, excellent comment. I second.
3 - Dr. Kurt
Well argued - I can't fault your logic. These is a strong element of the old (and beautiful) "Millions for defense, not a penny in tribute," but Iraq is not defense. It is offense. I'm not convinced Afghanistan was really that clearly a good idea, either. I know some old Rangers who contend that we could have gotten Osama & Co. faster and better without the bombers and tanks.
Perhaps the 9/11 terrorists (whether they were foreign or domestic)have already won, by bankrupting us & ruining our influence worldwide?
4 - Anthony Grande
Terrorists don't exist. Saddam wasn't bad. Saddam never massacred his own people. Saddam never paid Palestinian suicide bombers. Saddam never constantly breached the No Fly Zone. Saddam had no interest in gaining weapons of mass destruction.
Bush went to Iraq because he just loves when people critisize him and his polls numbers go down the drain (suupposedly).
Oh...yeah... we are stealing so much oil from Iraq that Gas back in the States is almost free. But not quite free.
5 - RogerMDillion
What a fun game. Can I play?
Anthony knows what he's talking about. People respect Anthony's opinion and writing style. Anthony is an adult that has life experinces to base his opinions on. Anthony does research and cites information in his arguements on.
6 - Sean Aqui
Dr Kurt,
Thanks for the thoughtful post.
I think Afghanistan was clearly a good idea because it destroyed a hateful regime and removed a sanctuary for Al Qaeda. The move dramatically weakened Al Qaeda, enhanced our international standing and sent a clear signal that messing with the United States carries severe consequences. All good things, IMO.
Then we took all that and threw it into the garbage by invading Iraq.
7 - Mike Valdman
Very interesting post again. I have many comments but I'll limit myself to just one. I agree with your overarching point that we have overemphasized and overreacted to the threat of terrorism. However, I don't think that you can estimate the threat of terrorism simply by looking at terrorism in the past. It it true that, in the past 20 years, terrorism has been like a flea on a St. Bernard. But suppose that terrorists manage to set off a nuclear devise in a large U.S. city. The results would be catastrophic -- both in loss of life and in the economic consequences for the country. What is the probability that terrorists will pull off a nuclear attack inside the U.S.? I don't know, but I don't think we can simply look at terrorism in the past to get an answer.
In general, to assess risk correctly we need to consider the magnitude of the threat and not just its likelihood. For instance, the chance of a nuclear reactor meltdown are probably very small, but sometimes small risks are important -- especially if many lives are at stake. Consider voting. The odds that my vote will make a difference in a presidential election is virtually zero, but if there is a lot at stake in the election, then it may still be rational for me to vote. Terrorism may be like this. The likelihood of me getting killed in a terrorist attack may be very slim, but if we're talking about a nuclear attack then there may be enough at stake to warrant taking that small probability very seriously.
8 - Sean Aqui
Mike,
Agreed. That's why I said an outsized response is still justified. Heck, look at the measures I proposed -- they're not precisely free.
I think a dirty bomb is more scare tactic than actual threat. The damage and radiological effects would be fairly minimal. An actual nuke would be very difficult to acquire, deliver to U.S. soil and set off. For one thing, even the smallest nukes these days are big and heavy -- you'd need a pickup truck to haul it around. That's not a simple thing to smuggle in, especially if we pay attention to port and border security.
More to the point, Iraq does nothing to protect us against those things. So the $200 billion spent so far is a waste as far as terrorism is concerned.
The "smuggled nuke" scenario has existed for decades. Let's deal with it the way we always have -- by protecting our borders and using intelligence assets to keep tabs on nuclear material and the people who might use it against us.