[lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete's Role Reversal
- From: Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 02:09:35 -0500
Andy: My definition of defensive is a clear attack, like Pearl
Harbor. In that case most likely everyone would want to
participate in some way anyhow. 9/11 was a terrorist attack by
an organization, not a state.
I think that's too simplistic.
Can a significant terrorist organization exist without state
sponsorship? The original view on this was "no," and hence the
invasion of Afghanistan sought to deprive the al-Qaeda varmints
of their training centers and Taliban sponsorship.
As we have learned to our cost in Iraq, however, the answer to
the question, "Can a terrorist organization exist without state
sponsorship?" is "Sometimes it can."
But whether the US seeks to destroy state sponsorship of
terrorism or (what should be the new task) discredit the
ideologies and destroy the individual terror cells, it is a form
of defensive war. And given the proliferation of WMD capacity
worldwide, it's a vital defensive war.
Consider that if we continue with the idea of a pre-9/11 enemy,
i.e., an attacking state, we will never be prepared for what is
coming at us. For the time being, no country is going to declare
war on us. But we will likely face:
(1) terror organizations such as Andy mentions,
(2) non-state terror agents acting with covert support of other
governments, and
(3) free-floating franchised terrorists acting autonomously.
All three threaten a form of war, and responses to all three can
easily be considered defensive wars. What most of us seem to be
debating is the proper conduct of these defensive wars--police
actions, counterinsurgency actions, clever foreign policy
decisions, sustained public relations and propaganda campaigns, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts: