Hacker News Reader

Comment by javert | Hacker News Reader

Actually, the way to fight terrorism is to destroy states that condone it and/or look the other way, as well as any major terrorist infrastructure therein (e.g. schools, training camps, stockpiles).

And the right way to do that, is by painting a bright "thou shalt not cross" line in the sand, and then enforcing it (if necessary) with overwhelming airborne superiority.

As opposed to a massive ground invasion and occupation, which has clearly been shown to be self-sacrificial and counterproductive.

-----

To respond in one place to the most common responses I'm getting:

It's fairly obvious in day-to-day life that and military history that (1) you don't appease or tolerate bullies; (2) you don't try to "reason" with the enemy. What I'm saying is a straightforward application of this, and what you're all saying is a straightforward denial of it.

View on HN

What?

The way to fight terrorism is to provide an environment where people not want to be terrorists. Terrorism requires no state sponsored infrastructure. Bombing places to hell doesn't stop the spread of hopelessness, of desperation, of taking comfort in extremism.

Note: Using the "anti-establishment guerrilla fighters" definition of terrorism, not "causing terror". That's a whole other bag of bagels.

The way to fight terrorism is to provide an environment where people not want to be terrorists.

That's a strategy of altruism and failure.

The Arab Spring has probably done more to fight terrorism than any war.

Don't you think its a bit early for such a claim? Who knows where Libya and Egypt will be in 5-10 years from now?

There's no single answer.

In Palestine, most of the terrorists (but maybe not the leaders) are alturists. Israel has captured quite a few, and profiled them - http://utexas.academia.edu/AmiPedahzur/Papers/209890/Altruis.... The same may have been true of the IRA, and it may be true of the Tamil Tigers. People only blow themselves up when they believe they are fighting against evil oppressors. In these cases, you are right - you need to address the root cause.

In the case of 911, the terrorists themselves may have been altruistic, but they were given support by Afghanistan (and maybe a few Saudis, but we need their oil). Knocking out states which support terrorism (which the US can do quite easily) may be an effective way to stop state-sponsored terrorism.

In any case, it's partly the result of peer pressure. If everyone in a community sees terrorism as a good thing, a few people in that community will become terrorists. Threatening states forces them to fight this attitude. In other cases, there is no state to threaten.

To respond to your bullies bit:

Not "reasoning" with the enemy is absurd--that's how eventually you conclude a conflict. How many wars have ended with the complete annihilation of one side? How many of those victors are regarded with anything other than disgust or shame nowadays?

There is a very concrete point past which the cost of preventing an attack exceeds the damage inflicted by an attack. "Bullies" or "enemies" or whatever you want to call them can trivially exploit this for a civilization that cannot run numbers and face facts.

I believe that I showed in another thread that the TSA alone has wasted human-life-equivalent years equivalent to the 9/11 attacks.

On the schoolyard, in the pub, yes, you should stand up to bullies. But at a national level? As a civilization? You can't reason in the same way.

How many wars have ended with the complete annihilation of one side? How many of those victors are regarded with anything other than disgust or shame nowadays?

Nazi Germany? Japan? There was only one way to deal with them; we did it; the world greatly respected us for it; and it's a success story. (This is not to downplay the role other, allied countries also played in these conflicts.)

I believe that I showed in another thread that the TSA alone has wasted human-life-equivalent years equivalent to the 9/11 attacks.

Right - I completely agree - I'm advocating the alternative.

So you say -- "Peace for our time"?

(More modern: Please check the resource curse on wikipedia, or something. You can't reason with dictators which keep their population down so they can steal oil money.)

Edit: Hrm, Wikipedia says it is "for", not "in". Updated.

Wrong in two.

The way to fight terrorism is to act kindly and justly, and to promote the racial welfare to the extent that everyone is happy and well fed enough that they don't go starting trouble. Also, you get productive enough that the occasional bouts of crazies can be ignored in the long-run--a suicide bomber can only kill once.

Conversely, the way to fight a state such as you propose is to conduct the cheapest attacks possible while causing your enemy to expend lots of resources to fight an ill-defined threat, and to make public statements that are easy to flaunt and vilify.

EDIT: by racial welfare I mean human race, not Caucasian or whatever damn fool distinctions little minds want to draw.

> The way to fight terrorism is to act kindly and justly, and to promote the racial welfare to the extent that everyone is happy and well fed enough that they don't go starting trouble.

Do you have any evidence for this? The typical suicide bomber is middle class.

Well, we've hardly treated Latin America, most of the Middle East, or Iran fairly, now have we?

There will always be relatively isolated wackos who want to cause damage to you, for real or perceived injustice. As long as you are not provoking a movement against you, it would seem that those can be considered random events which don't need to shape policy.

No, the right way involves increasing economic co-dependence and providing better opportunities than drug smugglers and organized crime can provide.

And we undercut our ability to even attempt such things when we overthrow people's governments and occupy them for a decade, bring war-with-American-flags to their literal doorstep day in and day out.

How do you square that with OBL being heir to one of the richest families in Saudi Arabia?

You say that with the sort of glowing confidence that can only come from thinking in black and white.

That's because not tolerating and appeasing bullies, and not trying to "reason" with the enemy, are pretty obvious principles.

And when your principles, in practice, serve only to make more "bullies" and "enemies"?

If that happens, stand up to them too.

What else do you want to do? Lay down and die? Build more sewers and help them elect mullahs? Expand the TSA?

Anyway, you'd be surprised at the degree to which others will actually respect you for standing up to bullying, and winning; and the degree to which appeasement actually fuels more bullying (i.e., terrorism). In practice, what would happen is the opposite of what you think. (But if not, stand up to 'em.)

Your entire premise circles around this concept that some Evil Foreign Groups exist, always waiting for any hint of American weakness to pounce.

Have you ever considered that many of these groups develop as a response to our own neocolonial actions in their backyard?

I'm just giving the medicine to cure a particular disease. What caused the disease is irrelevant; all that is relevant is whether or not the medicine works.

That said, I very strongly oppose occupying foreign countries, the TSA, sacrificing our troops, providing foreign aid to nations that operate concentration camps (NoKo), etc. If I want to oppose these things effectively, I have to propose an alternative. I am.

By the way, I think the term "neocolonial" is stupid. I don't know precisely what you mean by it, but I'm assuming you mean roughly the preceeding paragraph, and I'm stating that my solution should not be considered a part of the imaginary "neocolonial" set of actions, but I don't know if you'll agree with that.

Many people in many countries view the United States as bullies. Should we never be appeased? Never be reasoned with? Never be tolerated?

That's the absolute opposite thing to do. We've been doing that for decades and all its done is bred hatred for us. Our interests are almost never pure.

The actual method is simple: You won't get stung if you don't poke the hornet nest.

The way they're beaten is through the people that harbor them, turn the citizens on the terrorists and they won't support them. Support of the population is one of the more important exploits that terrorists use.

The right way to fight terrorism is to educate the people in the countries they come from, by giving them schools and positive paths for their future.

How many poor teenagers do you think would join terrorists if they had better options and understood more about the world than the limited view they are purposely given?

Why do you think the first thing they do is destroy schools and ban women from attending them?

<sarcasm>Right on! Remember when we bombed Dublin and shut up those IRA dudes! Our unmanned drones totally delegitimized Sinn Fein, and the strategy of not reasoning with the Provisional IRA was such a great success! G.B. 4 Life!</sarcasm>

Terrific ideas. Can you cite any historical examples of when these strategies have succeeded? I'd hate to think you were just regurgitating neocon warmonger authoritarian dogma.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com