[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>When you commit an Act of War, you get a violent
>response. When you commit an Act of War against the United States, you get
>a _really_ violent response.
Now that's an interesting statement.
I've held off on discussing this because I've been really really busy
lately, but fall into the "agree with both Gautam and Nick, sometimes" camp.
Is a violent response to an Act of War justified?
Yes.
Is violence the *goal* of a response to an Act of War?
No.
The goal is "stop it from happening again"*. That means removing the ability
of those who committed the act to commit it again. If that requires killing
them, so be it. If that means sending 500k troops or lobbing nukes at them,
so be it. If it means arresting the perps and putting them on trial for war
crimes, so be it.
Were the attack *truly* not state sanctioned (i.e. it was just 18 guys with
a bone to pick, no sponsorship or aid, etc) then the correct response is
probably nothing, just as there's no point in retaliating against a single
mad gunman who shoots up a school and then takes his own life. In that case,
all you can do is try to treat the cause rather than going after the
symptoms - not a trivial task when it's clashing ideologies mixed with
global socioeconomics.
Restating what I said above, the response to an Act of War should be to
eliminate the ability of the agressor to do harm again. In the past, this
mean killing them, and killing a large number of only nominally complicit
people to get to them. This was, IMHO, justified.
With this sort of attack, it seems quite conceivable that the number of
people directly responsible could fit, if you pardon the comparison, on a
large aircraft. An invading army is not the right means to gather up those
people and ensure they do no further harm.
Complicating the issue is the matter of avoiding martyrdom. Any action the
US takes will cause anyone who dislikes the US to dislike the US any more -
it's a given, and irrespective of the action. Killing those responsible
makes obvious martyrs out of them. Hunting them down and treating them with
civility while putting them on trial will not endear the US to groups that
hate it already, but is a saner option.
Again, though, if massive force is required to prevent this from happening
again, it should be used. I'm skeptical that it is. IMHO, the correct
approach is to continue proselytizing peace, freedom, democracy,
luxury-through-capitalism, and tolerance. Since most of those are based on
greed it's an infectuous meme if backed up with dollar signs.
Joshua
* Remember the "Does Darth Vader deserve forgiveness or punishment in
eternal hell?" debate? Same thing.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
