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.Actually, like crime, terrorism can be defeated if societies take the appropriate steps to combat it.
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.
If there's any moral outrage for Brooks, it's directed against those who refuse to give terrorists the upper hand, like the Bush administration. And that's really what this essay is all about: President-Elect Obama, "The One," has a chance to heal the world with his magical powers - no more "war" against the major ideological challenge now facing facing us. Transcendance and understanding will overcome.
But wait! Brooks' recommendations for a new effort to combat terrorism look a whole lot like the old efforts to combat terrorism: intelligence, targeting of terror cells, political initiatives (all of which describes current administation policy).
What Brooks is trying say is we should never use violence, because supposedly we'll be giving the terrorists what they want.
And really, all that's suggesting is that Western societies should disarm themselves, and focus on "confidence-building" and the "lessening of tensions."
Click here to see what it looks like when societies capitulate to the "fear" of alienating their enemies.
(1) Calling Brooks a "mindless left-wing crank" might make you feel good, but it doesn't do much to advance argument. It's rude and dismissive. You may not agree with Brooks' assessment, but that difference of opinion doesn't justify that tone. Starting with name-calling is a surefire way to decrease the persuasiveness of your argument and it conveys a sense that you're unwilling to engage in a sincere discussion about issues and attitudes.
ReplyDelete(2) Brooks is not arguing that we shouldn't be outraged by terrorism. She does state that we should "get used to it" and I would agree with you that this is a defeatist attitude, but I don't think we can reasonably say that she's "ok" with terror. Her position, though far from strong, is slightly more nuanced than that. It's muddled and somewhat self-contradictory (she maintains that terrorists don't have a motive for going high-tech while simultaneously expressing a legitimate concern for a terrorist CBW or nuclear attack, for instance) but it clearly isn't some kind of defense of terrorism.
(3) Claiming that the article's only "moral outrage" is directed at Bush doesn't seem very accurate to me, either. Brooks wants to see a different reaction to terrorism and different approaches to the problem from the next administration. That doesn't evidence a moral outrage to me and it seems like a big stretch to claim otherwise.
(4) Asserting that this column is actually "all about" Obama is also inaccurate. Is it a critique of Bush policy? Sure. Does it reflect a desire to see a policy change when Obama takes office? Sure. Is it really "all about" Obama using "magical powers"? Of course not. I don't see an argument by Brooks that indicates she thinks Obama is some sort of magician or transcendant figure with healing powers. I see some shallow analysis of terrorism sprinkled with a few halfway decent observations. Trying to minimize her arguments by portraying them as the scribbles of an Obama cultist isn't just poor argument, it's completely unnecessary, as you could actually answer her positions and bury many them based on real evidence and logic.
(5) The one point that Brooks does make that resonates with me is the part of the column that you don't deal with directly. I think that her discussion of terrorism as strategy and how we amplify the effectiveness of terrorism by overreaction and panic has some merit. She's obviously not the first person to advance those arguments and others have done it more eloquently, but there is some truth to the argument. Unfortunately, she does seem to interpret that idea as a reason to dial back our pressures on terrorists actors instead of discussing how we might minimize "panic" while continuing to take action to shut down terrorists.
(6) Claiming that Brooks is calling for us to "never use violence" of that she's really suggesting that "Western societies should disarm themselves" is clearly NOT supported by a reading of her column. Although she does discuss a need not to "lash out indiscriminately", that's a long way from never lashing out. Her inclusion of "carefully targeted disruptions of specific terrorist organizations" evidences that she would have room in her perspective for a reaction to terrorism. She certainly doesn't say "let's disarm" and there's no reason whatsoever to interpret her column as a call for some kind of completely pacifistic policy. Claming that she does make that argument must either fall into the category of hyperbole or be dismissed as unfair and incorrect.
Preaching to the choir, misrepresenting the views of those who disagree with you, and attacking those people as "mindless cranks" does very little to advance your perspective. Instead, in my opinion, it comes off as the kind of shallow attack that contributes to the ruin of productive discourse. I know there's a certain fun in finding ways to chide the opposition, but you can (and should) do better.
From another mindless crank:
ReplyDelete"Instead, in my opinion, it comes off as the kind of shallow attack that contributes to the ruin of productive discourse."
Even if the paragraph quoted constituted prima facie evidence of mindlessness and/or crankiness, you failed to answer the criticisms of your original post.
ReplyDeleteYou claim to welcome comments and debate, but your response wasn't particularly welcoming.
And it certainly didn't constitute actual debate.
Are you still willing to maintain that Brooks' column was a call for disarmament? Are you still convinced that the text proves she only feels a sense of moral outrage for Bush policies and not terror? Are you certain that your original assessment of the Brooks' piece was accurate?
If so, it should be rather simple to answer the arguments presented.
I know that's not as easy as hurling insults, but no one ever said that good argument was easy, Professor.
Considering the success of the Bush administration in keeping terrorism at bay for close to eight years, why do we need another approach? There's always a political component to the left's tirades. They simply want Bush to fail.
ReplyDeleteMr. Obama could do EXACTLY the same things Mr. Bush has done, and you will hear 'nary a peep from the Left.
ReplyDeleteTheir anti-war stance was and is a vehicle to achieve their true objective ... the denigration and discreditation of the conservative worldview, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
No matter how much blood and treasure is wasted in the process.
Anon, we're tired of the parsing and navel-gazing ... we were nice for years, and you and your ilk repaid it with tar and feathers, all the while ignoring the REAL threats of totalitarian expansion that were growing at the time because of the paralysis-by-analysis of the allegedly "nuanced" like Ms. Brooks and yourself.
We DON'T have to "live with it" ... we already know how to eradicate it.
You do so by directly, expeditiously, resolutely, and decisively confronting terrorism as what it is ... not a crime, an ACT OF WAR ...
... then once you defeat it, you replace the dysfunctional governance that enabled it to grow with the kind of rights-respecting governance this nation was founded upon ... because when a nation adopts such rights-respecting governance, history shows us again and again -- from Nazi Germany to Baathist Iraq -- that the threat of violent action is DIMINISHED, eventually to insignificance.
The lack of confidence in the universal applicability of such principles of governance -- and the need for free people to ACT to impose them on those who would deny them to their people -- on the part of supposedly-learned and nuanced people like Ms. Brooks and yourself, has made the world less free ... and without freedom and the respect for it, peace is just an illusion.
My recommendation: end the analysis, and go to PROVEN, EFFECTIVE action.
Either lead the world in this effort, follow us and others in leadership ... or get the hell out of the way.
Mom always said, ignore the bullies and they will go away... WHAT? I don't believe we can dismiss these modern day bullies as easily as the left would like to. They will not just go away, and they do not care whom they target, except that it be for maximum terror effect.
ReplyDeleteBrook's "assessment" is naive at best. First of all, I do not want to "get used to it", that is a load of bull. Second, Bush has indeed kept them at bay, both by his sheer will and his refusal to cater to them.
They are war criminals, and ought to be treated as such. You can't reason with them, and you cannot please them. Their goal is total annihilation, not kumbaya...
Sadly, nothing you (or anyone can) say will make the left agree with those of us on the right. Only a direct attack on America again, will have any effect or change their weak stance.
I guess we will have to wait a year or so, until their policies, make that possible again.
And the Left Angeles Times wonders why they keep losing readers? Save for Jonah Goldberg's column once a week, the Times Op-ed page is just unreadable. If it was not for the sports and the need for Sunday coupons and package filler, I would NEVER get the rag.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRosa Brooks said "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)."
ReplyDeleteSounds awful familiar. Oh wait - that IS the War On Terror.
http://greatsatansgirlfriend.blogspot.com/2008/12/winning-next-war.html