Start by growing a pair. You know, show a little grace under fire. Life is a terminal condition. Might as well "continue with style".(guess what movie that's from)

What's the purpose of terrorism? No, it's not to make you afraid. It's purpose is to make you act out of fear.

Assuming you're not a SEAL or a CIA guy, what does counterterrorism mean to you?

It means that you do not participate in the public hysteria when terrorists attack, but instead react proportionally, placing the terrorist act in its proper place in the vast scheme of crimes, accidents, disease, natural disaster, and generic tragedy that is man's lot on earth.

It means that you do not permit the politicians to feel terror on your behalf. It means that you discourage them from fomenting and exploiting hysteria to expand their own power at the expense of traditional American principles.

It means that you view terrorism as a matter for international police work, under the rule of law, and not a justification for bloated government programs, reckless wars, or the shredding of the Bill of Rights.

It means that you recruit others to adopt your war winning strategy of not being afraid.


What is the biggest obstacle to implementing this strategy? Your elected representatives, unfortunately. Why?

First, the politicians are afraid of public opinion. They're scared to look weak and uncaring by not doing something big and noticeable to fight terrorism, no matter how overblown or counterproductive.

Second, they love the opportunity to exploit public fear to expand their own power and importance.

So you need to help them out. Send them this message:

I am not afraid of terrorism, and I want you to stop being afraid on my behalf. Please start scaling back the official government war on terror. Please replace it with a smaller, more focused anti-terrorist police effort in keeping with the rule of law. Please stop overreacting. I understand that it will not be possible to stop all terrorist acts. I accept that. I am not afraid.

more here

Bravo!

politicians even the ones that start out as and can be held out as examples of good leaders do eventually succumb to the draw of power and are eventually subverted by it or if not; by those who possess (or at least appear to possess) the ability to take it away from them. The problem then becomes how to keep and maintain their attention and focus on the task we have assigned to them. The answer is to have the ability and the willingness to put and hold their hands to the fire.

Oott

Great post

Brilliant. I second all of that. :-)

Someone who states the truth clearly and rationally. I simply cannot understand how the descendent's of our brave founders are so afraid of every little bump in the night. Life is inherently dangerous. Get over it. Terrorism existed before 9.11 and it will continue long after. Bravissimo!

9/11 isn't on the list.

And here I thought an act of terrorism is an act of war....

Flying airplanes into building and killing a couple of thousand Americans sounds like an act of war to me. Sort of reminds me of Pearl Harbor, the proverbial "Day of Infamy".

You don't send cops after terrorists, you send soldiers.

You don't arrest terrorists, you kill them.

If you capture terrorists, then give them a trial, put them in jail, and leave them there. For the rest of their lives. Torturing said terrorist never provides anything useful to the cause.

When you run out of terrorists, you tell the spooks to find some more.

Cops are really good at directing traffic. They should stick to things they are good at.

Rock

Hmmmm.....

I wonder why every OTHER country that has had to deal with terrorism - DIDN'T send in their army? Seems funny that every major terrorist related action since 9-11 has been enacted by law-enforcement not the military. But then I guess I live in a different world.

in counterterrorism, is to menace and/or kill arab regimes that support, in whatever fashion, terrorist attacks against the US. All arab terrorism since the 70s has occurred with the complicity of various arab intelligence services, and that would stop abruptly ifthose regimes believed their lives depended on its stopping. But once the regime-killing is done, the army needs to get out.

That's why killing Saddam's regime was the germ of a good idea, but then we had to screw it up with this bullshit democratist utopian wet-dream of nation-building. We should simply have shot Saddam and his thousand or so closest associates, then made it clear to his successors, as well as other regimes in the region, that they would enjoy exactly the same fate if they didn't start handing over the so-called "non-state actors", or their corpses, instead of supporting them. If we felt we couldn't go in and kill Saddam without having to stay around for the civil war, we shouldn't have gone in at all.

As to police, there are many kinds of police, the traffic kind, sure, but also the counter-terrorism kind, and they are more effective than the army at hunting down terrorist cells. Unless you're talking about the various types of covert ops guys, SEALs, SF, whatever, regular army is counterproductive in counterterrorism work. Too big a footprint.

Many successful police operations, and I include spooks (intelligence services) as police, since 9/11; from the US to London, Spain, North Africa, Turkey, Bali, all over. It's easier to get the assistance of foreign police and intelligence services, if you're more circumspect about the use of the army.

gmat:

in counterterrorism, is to menace and/or kill arab regimes that support, in whatever fashion, terrorist attacks against the US. All arab terrorism since the 70s has occurred with the complicity of various arab intelligence services, and that would stop abruptly ifthose regimes believed their lives depended on its stopping. But once the regime-killing is done, the army needs to get out. That's why killing Saddam's regime was the germ of a good idea, but then we had to screw it up with this bullshit democratist utopian wet-dream of nation-building. We should simply have shot Saddam and his thousand or so closest associates, then made it clear to his successors, as well as other regimes in the region, that they would enjoy exactly the same fate if they didn't start handing over the so-called "non-state actors", or their corpses, instead of supporting them. If we felt we couldn't go in and kill Saddam without having to stay around for the civil war, we shouldn't have gone in at all. As to police, there are many kinds of police, the traffic kind, sure, but also the counter-terrorism kind, and they are more effective than the army at hunting down terrorist cells. Unless you're talking about the various types of covert ops guys, SEALs, SF, whatever, regular army is counterproductive in counterterrorism work. Too big a footprint. Many successful police operations, and I include spooks (intelligence services) as police, since 9/11; from the US to London, Spain, North Africa, Turkey, Bali, all over. It's easier to get the assistance of foreign police and intelligence services, if you're more circumspect about the use of the army.

Hmmm...the old Might is Right argument. It's worked so well for others throughout history. What you end by saying is that a good defense, spies, intel, ect, is the best offense.

Perhaps, and this is just a thought, the US should not have helped establish Saddam in the first place.

Killing someone because they are inconvenient to you or your nation is immoral. What does it profit a man if he gains the world but loses his soul.

You are right that for counterterrorism, a good defense, international police work, human and technological intelligence is where the resources should go for the best effect.

I wouldn't characterize my remarks on the use of the army as "might makes right" because I'm advocating only a specific, limited role for "might" in counterterrorism, qualified by the warning not to use it at all if you can't stay within those limits.

Using Saddam as a surrogate against Iran was a bad idea, yes. Of course that was dreamed up by the same bunch that brought us the current nation-building project in Iraq.

I don't advocate killing someone who is "inconvenient to you." I'm talking about using force or the threat of force to coerce regimes who abet terrorism against the US to change their ways, as part of an overall counterterrorism strategy. And I'm talking specifically about arab regimes.

I see specific...

gmat:

in counterterrorism, is to menace and/or kill arab regimes that support, in whatever fashion, terrorist attacks against the US. All arab terrorism since the 70s has occurred with the complicity of various arab intelligence services, and that would stop abruptly ifthose regimes believed their lives depended on its stopping. But once the regime-killing is done, the army needs to get out. That's why killing Saddam's regime was the germ of a good idea, but then we had to screw it up with this bullshit democratist utopian wet-dream of nation-building. We should simply have shot Saddam and his thousand or so closest associates, then made it clear to his successors, as well as other regimes in the region, that they would enjoy exactly the same fate if they didn't start handing over the so-called "non-state actors", or their corpses, instead of supporting them. If we felt we couldn't go in and kill Saddam without having to stay around for the civil war, we shouldn't have gone in at all. As to police, there are many kinds of police, the traffic kind, sure, but also the counter-terrorism kind, and they are more effective than the army at hunting down terrorist cells. Unless you're talking about the various types of covert ops guys, SEALs, SF, whatever, regular army is counterproductive in counterterrorism work. Too big a footprint. Many successful police operations, and I include spooks (intelligence services) as police, since 9/11; from the US to London, Spain, North Africa, Turkey, Bali, all over. It's easier to get the assistance of foreign police and intelligence services, if you're more circumspect about the use of the army.

You see for me I have a problem with anyone who feels they have the right to kill someone else in some other country. Of course its always in "our intrests" or to "defend our intrests" but as we have seen throughout history this is a clever lie designed specifically to get individuals like yourself to agree to get your balls shot off, while the real benefactors sip champagne and eat caviar.

Sending armies anywhere but to the borders of your nation to defend yourself is wrong on every level. And its seed - germ in your case - always seem to bear sour fruit.

gmat:

You are right that for counterterrorism, a good defense, international police work, human and technological intelligence is where the resources should go for the best effect. I wouldn't characterize my remarks on the use of the army as "might makes right" because I'm advocating only a specific, limited role for "might" in counterterrorism, qualified by the warning not to use it at all if you can't stay within those limits. Using Saddam as a surrogate against Iran was a bad idea, yes. Of course that was dreamed up by the same bunch that brought us the current nation-building project in Iraq. I don't advocate killing someone who is "inconvenient to you." I'm talking about using force or the threat of force to coerce regimes who abet terrorism against the US to change their ways, as part of an overall counterterrorism strategy. And I'm talking specifically about arab regimes.

I agree with Cod3Fr3ak. I too have a problem with killing someone because we feel it's necessary. I also have a problem with your statement about aiding and abetting terrorism.

There was and is not proof Saddam aided or abetted terrorism. There is supposition and that is all. If we want to kill those who aid and abet terrorism then we need to look at where the 9.11 hijackers came from. Saudi Arabia. I'm pretty sure Musharraf is fibbing when he says bin Laden is not in Pakistan. If nothing else, A.Q. Khan was from Pakistan. We should be killing those leaders too by your rational but in the end, all those countries would end up in worse shape.

We used the "threat" of force against Iraq before the invasion and it didn't work. Surely Saddam knew he could not defeat the US and yet the threat didn't work.

Who abets terrorism can be stretched to the shrieking point by unethical leaders (and in fact it already has). The UK was the stopping off point for lots of suspected terrorists. The 9.11 terrorists lived here in the US. Germany has harbored terrorists. Combine your thoughts with the stated policy of the US to do what is in our "National Interest" and that is a recipe for disaster.