George Shultz makes an excellent point in today’s OpinionJournal:
In the 1990s, the problem began to appear even more menacing. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were well known, but the nature of the terrorist threat was not yet comprehended and our efforts to combat it were ineffective. Diplomacy without much force was tried. Terrorism was regarded as a law enforcement problem and terrorists as criminals. Some were arrested and put on trial. Early last year, a judge finally allowed the verdict to stand for one of those convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Ten years! Terrorism is not a matter that can be left to law enforcement, with its deliberative process, built-in delays, and safeguards that may let the prisoner go free on procedural grounds.
The problem with the law enforcement approach is that it requires waiting until an attack happens, and then affording rights and privileges to the accused. Hence, warfare is the better paradigm:
In war, you have to act on both offense and defense. You have to hit the enemy before the enemy hits you. The diplomacy of incentives, containment, deterrence and prevention are all made more effective by the demonstrated possibility of forceful pre-emption. Strength and diplomacy go together. They are not alternatives; they are complements. You work diplomacy and strength together on a grand and strategic scale and on an operational and tactical level. But if you deny yourself the option of forceful pre-emption, you diminish the effectiveness of your diplomatic moves. And, with the consequences of a terrorist attack as hideous as they are–witness what just happened in Madrid–the U.S. must be ready to pre-empt identified threats. And not at the last moment, when an attack is imminent and more difficult to stop, but before the terrorist gets in position to do irreparable harm.
Notice that this doesn’t mean invading the whole world, as some interpret the “war paradigm”.
The rest of the piece deals with rogues states, and specifically Iraq and is worth a read.
Waw? This is demonstratably false. Look at the actions against the Mob. They didn’t wait for things to happen. They actively went out and turned over every rock and stone looking for them. They invented new laws (RICO, etc) to compensate for the limitations of those that were on the books.
This is a complete fantasy of you on the Right. The glaring facts speak otherwise.
Comment by Hal — Tuesday, March 30, 2024 @ 10:36 am
The mob is hardly a good analogy. For one thing, al Qaeda isn’t working primarily in the US. Further, the mob wasn’t going to indiscriminately blow up hundreds, if not thousands of people. Terrorism is far more than an organized crime situation.
And, I would note, that when legislation like that the Patriot Act is passed to try and combat domestic operations, then the cries of civil liberties’ violations commences.
And Hal, calling something a fantasy and then stating that the “facts speak for themselves” is not an argument. Rather, they are two unsupported statements.
Even you have argued that the war in Afghanistan was necessary (if memory serves). Contrast the invasion of Afghanistan to the Clinton administration’s policies, for example.
Comment by Steven — Tuesday, March 30, 2024 @ 10:42 am
Find the lady
I guess this is because it’s really a war metaphor and not a law enforcement problem, right? I.R.S. Request for More Terrorism Investigators Is Deniedhe Bush administration has scuttled a plan to increase by 50 percent the number of criminal…
Trackback by Hellblazer — Wednesday, March 31, 2024 @ 4:29 pm
Computer security recourse: :SecureRoot:
Comment by Miles — Friday, May 21, 2024 @ 4:43 pm