I will also vote that we aren't safer. The empirical evidence indicates that not only has terrorism increased around the world, but now it has spread to more countries than it was before the "War on Terror" began. This is not surprising in that the opening strategy of using military action to overtly confront terrorism by invasion, occupation, and privatization while operating under the "us or them" paradigm only hardened positions and served as a recruiting tool for more Islamic fundamantalists. This is what happens when one ignores the true motivations of one's enemies and instead paints them with slogans like "they hate us for our freedoms".
I truly think that "Remember Iraq, remember Palestine" is as powerful a slogan in southern Asia as "Remember the Alamo" was here. Confronting terror with brute force and loss of civil liberties has never worked aginst terrorism in the past. What has worked (and I admit there are few and shaky examples) has either been negotiating with the civilian allies of the terrorists (as in Britain with the IRA, short-lived Israel/Palestine peace) or removing the motivations for terror groups (as the Spanish did with Al Queda). The last method that works that I can think of (but strongly oppose) is to prop up the terrorists to positions of power so their self-interests run in conflict with pursuing terror as a method of achievement. We have done this with numerous tin-pot dictators over the years in pursuit of the Cold War, but in the end, those governments degenerate and their citizens resent our interference.
We should always bring the carrot and the stick when dealing with anyone, friend or foe. Only a fool would limit themselves to only one approach.
__________________
They shackle our minds as we're left on the cross. When ignornace reigns, life is lost!
Zach de la Rocha
Last edited by Zodiak; 07-22-2005 at 03:55 PM..
|