Fifty-five years old and still clueless about terrorism
Tom Friedman has long been considered a leading expert on foreign affairs, especially in the post-9/11 world. Liberals consider him one of their own, always seeking ways to use his ‘well-considered’ positions to leverage their cynical isolationism and moral relativism. Moderates feel content when they discover his stance nicely counterbalances their occasional lapse into exuberant hawkishness. But, realistically, what would either group think of his solution to defend against the sort of violence we’ve seen in Mumbai?
. . . it takes a village. The best defense against this kind of murderous violence is to limit the pool of recruits, and the only way to do that is for the home society to isolate, condemn and denounce publicly and repeatedly the murderers — and not amplify, ignore, glorify, justify or “explain” their activities.
Sure, better intelligence is important. And, yes, better SWAT teams are critical to defeating the perpetrators quickly before they can do much damage. But at the end of the day, terrorists often are just acting on what they sense the majority really wants but doesn’t dare do or say. That is why the most powerful deterrent to their behavior is when the community as a whole says: “No more. What you have done in murdering defenseless men, women and children has brought shame on us and on you, and now we’re all gonna get fucking killed by drones and Special Ops shock troops.
I might have added a few words to the end of that, but I needed to finish Friedman’s astonishingly stupid and naive brain tremor. Is this what passes for reasoned foreign policy commentary at the New York Times?
I could be wrong, but even if the terrorists responsible for the Mumbai attack perhaps found significant favor among other people in their homeland, aren’t they still engaging in a crossborder paramilitary action? Akin to an attack launched by an official military? An attack that should invite reprisals?
And, Tom, if terrorists are indeed in line with what the majority in their society believe, then it is a society irretrievably comfortable with the idea of mass murder. Only a fool would you expect them to condemn it.
More at HotAir
Related posts: