Later today, Enduring America's inaugural podcast will be on the following topic:The Washington Post proposes, in the wake of the Mumbai attacks, "a crackdown on terrorists".
But how shall we crack down on terrorists? Certainly not by treating them as rational and thus understanding how they could justify these killings ---
for David Aaronovitch, "There isn't anything - whatever the explanatists say - we can concede to the zealots of Faridkot that will persuade such people, once radicalised, not to try to kill us. " Certainly not through any process of international law, enforcement, or co-operation,
as Robert Kagan argues --- apparently oblivious of the consequences, including the possible reinforcement of "terror", of US bombing and targeted assassination amongst local populations --- we should be "establishing the principle that Pakistan and other states that harbor terrorists should not take their sovereignty for granted".
By treating the terrorists solely as men and women
"brainwashed by an ideology of hatred", we can adopt violent measure in response, set aside any notion of law, morality, and ethics, and conduct a war without end. Indeed, we can honour ourselves for doing so.
As William Kristol advocates, we can "be vociferously praising--everyone who served in good faith in the war on terror", be this through waterboarding, surveillance, rendition, and even assassination --- "but whose deeds may now be susceptible to demagogic or politically inspired prosecution by some seeking to score political points".*
President Bush, in his apology which wasn't really an apology this week, said, "I wish the intelligence had been different" on Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction. If the intelligence had been different - in other words, if it could have magically produced those WMDs --- then there would have been a rational basis for an invasion to overthrow the evil and irrationality of Saddam Hussein.
Maybe five years from now, an Aaronovitch or Kagan or Kristol --- after there is more violence, more terrorism, more conflict --- will admit some recognition that your enemy is rational and that he/she sees a cause for their violence. Maybe they will recognise that dealing with the cause, while it may or may not deter a particular individual from his/her path, will in long run drain the swamp that supports the mosquitoes.
Then again, probably not.
*Not-so-tangential note: Like Kagan, Kristol has a warning for those who aren't patriotic enough to deal with the crazies in their midst:"In a nation like Pakistan, the government will have to be persuaded to deal with those in their midst who are complicit. This can happen if those nations’ citizens decide they don’t want their own country to be dishonored by allegiances with terror groups. Otherwise, other nations may have to act."
Thursday, December 4, 2008 at 17:40 
