Good Guys and Bad Guys

In today's Tribune Magazine letters section we were treated to some reflective pieces on terrorism and war. It seems that two weeks prior the magazine had dared profile a peace activist, and a reader had deigned to take up his pen and voice his approval. Apparently this sparked an outcry in the beyond-the-bungalow belt. "Understanding the terrorists?" "Reasoning" with them? Perish the thought! These vermin are out to kill us, so we must kill them first.

While this writer did not attend peacenik camp, if ever there was a time when understanding the enemy was the first order of business, we are witnessing it. When popular reasoning runs that we must eradicate Islamic terrorism because it is equivalent to Nazi rule and warmongering, and hence not open to negotiation, it is time for a teach-in. But no--the great beast has been struck: the American rears his Ugly head and the world cowers.

I would be the last to advance the notion that idiots can be convinced of their idiocy and see the light of reason. Any brief sojourn in the land of the free would assure one otherwise. But these terrorists are not mere idiots--they are educated idiots. Misundereducated, to be sure, but educated nonetheless, and more aware of the state of things than the benighted folk who have lately woken up to the world.

The "logic" evinced in these missives is staggeringly stolid. To paraphrase one: "there's a difference between a war to protect us and a conquest or a crusade; Islamic regimes are horrendous and must be changed." Sparkling. Here's another: "It is not our change they seek. It is our conquest." Right, because commercial airliners are the preferred military vehicles for conquest. Must I go on? "There will always be bad people in the world, and sadly, sometimes the only solution is to kill them before they can (kill us)." While this may have earned high marks in third grade social studies, or at least social mathematics, I wish to rebut it directly. If one is fighting for survival amongst wolves and the like, one would do well to administer a few coups de grâce to the murderous element. When the scene shifts to millions of people and billions of dollars, it is clear that we are better off withholding our energies from these entangling engagements. The point of fact is that the baddest of the bad have already either met their maker or made appointments to do so. To endeavour to eliminate terrorism because there is a chance that by killing terrorists the total number of dead will be smaller leads to a very slippery slope. Money can be spent to save lives in far more effective fashion; the mind of the policy wonk fairly boggles at the possibilities.

So both the simpleton sentiment of revenge and the intellectual argument of prevention are wrong, and the "war on terror" is doomed to failure. The intellectual version is only slightly more sophisticated. (More to come.)