Tuesday, July 19, 2005


The ultimate response to an Islamist terrorist attack:
Rep. Tom Tancredo refused Monday to back down from his statement Friday suggesting that the United States might respond to a radical Islamic terrorist attack by bombing Muslim holy sites.
Strangely, a similar option was long ago recommended by Australian Peter Layton:
Nuclear threats traditionally have been handled using deterrent strategies. In this case, a declaratory policy could be devised based on the threat of retaliation if an attack occurs in the West by nonstate actors using the Arab way of war. In such a circumstance, there could be a strategy of instant, graduated response: nuclear strikes against several of the capital cites of the Middle Eastern nations that long have demonstrated support for this method of war. The response's intensity and discrimination would vary based on the severity of the WMD attack. This approach would be a policy of deterrence through the threat of brutal and immediate punishment of particular societies.
Unfortunately, this would play right into bin Laden's hands.


Anonymous Jorgen said...

But I am all for sending Tancredo on a fact-finding mission to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Palestine to make them think.

7:39 PM  
Anonymous The_Real_JeffS said...

A second problem is that we don't like killing civilians in wars any more.

Actually, most people never did like killing civilians in wars. It's just that with the technology available even 20 years ago, extensive civilian casualties were inevitable. We still get them today, but only through error or malfunction.

But I agree -- send Tancredo on a fact finding mission! He'll make people think!

7:55 PM  
Anonymous Jorgen said...

Fair enough - but history shows only too often examples where the goal was to wipe out a town to make the enemy soft.

9:28 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home