Malcolm Winfield Re: <<[using] extreme violence in taking out the terrorists?>>
My thinking and my code tell me that the more violence we use to take out the terrorists, the better. It's just that we must pay respect to the people of the region that the terrorists are in. Those that are blameless cannot be sacrificed at our discretion. There is a "right way" even in wars. I was in a bloody one and I was in the jungle. We still had our code, it might not have been one that people would understand who were not there, but it was a code and we kept to it. When you lose that you end up with things like the My Lai massacre and, no matter how effective that is, it's just wrong. It's wrong politically, morally and in the end it only creates a more determined and implacable foe. Look at what happened in America on September 11. There are a huge number of Americans who would now be willing to kill and die fighting and killing the terrorists who did this thing. In this same way, if we overreact we only create more of the bad guys and we do it in a way that lends credibility to their cause.
If we have a code that exacts vengence and removes those who have harmed our non combatants without escalating things, I think most of the world, no matter what they say, will understand. It's like in the street fight analogy we have used here before, you have the right to retaliate against the one that sucker punched you. If he hit you with a fist, you don't have the right to kill him with a gun. If you do then you are the bad guy. You don't have the right to sucker punch his buddy. If you do then you are wrong. If he is part of a gang that encouraged him to sucker punch you, then you can punch out other gang members and tell them to get out and stay out. You don't have the right to go into their neighborhood and start breaking down doors and punching out anyone you see. If you do then you are the bad guy. It takes a measured response to the level of violence and it must be directed at the one who initiated the violence.
In this case the terrorists gangs killed over 7,000 people who had done them no harm. They and others who encouraged, supported and planned such actions are on a list. They are fair game and there is no limit to what we can do to them directly, in terms of time, level of reaction or suffering we cause them. We must be reasonably sure who they are, we must be as careful to harm only them as we can humanly be and we must show respect for the nations and the customs of the people where our retaliatory actions take place.
The world should know that there were faster, safer and more effective ways for us to deal with them but that we are not an outlaw nation that is willing to exercise power just because we have it. Only then will world opinion firm up in our corner. Only then will the nations of people who practice eastern religions realize that America respects and values their people, their sovereignty and their customs. Only then will nations like China and Russia have faith in the fact that we are not, and do not intend to be, an agressor nation that is a danger to them because we have power and will use it in ways that are beyond the scope of international law.
With regard to "half measures," the only "full measure" is, I believe, the annihilation of entire cultural and ethnic groups of people. Everything else is a half measure. What I am saying is that we need to find the half measure that will address the current danger but, more importantly, look forward like we did with the Truman doctrine to build alliances, trust and prosperity so that the cycle is broken and the populations of various nations are brought into the world community of civilized nations. It is not something that can happen in months and maybe not years. It may take decades but we have to take the first steps to change the climate of hate and to help the advancement of third world people across the globe. We all live in the same fish bowl; if we help them, we help ourselves.
With regard to Israel, I agree. It is much easier to understand their reaction and actions now that we have been on the other end of the stick. I think we all would do well to remember, however, the courageous actions of the Israeli and Egyption heads of state when Egypt braved Arab extremists and made peace with Israel. It was an action that led to the assassination of the Egyptian leader. I think it was Anwar Sadat. From the actions of statesmen like that who swam against the tide of hatred and revenge, we can take a lesson. Greater and greater escalation of violence does not solve these problems unless you are willing to kill them all. It only creates more and more violence. What is needed is a good "half measure" and then a plan to attack the problem in it's branch and it's root (to paraphrase the words used by our officials with respect to removing the terrorist threat.)Ed |
