Fighting Terrorism My ideas on a Newsweek article

I read this article today http://www.msnbc.com/news/841728.asp?vts=12520022041#BODY , December 5th, 2002.

As I was reading the article, I was agreeing with everything but then the columnist said “the answer is ideology.” Well OK but why? I see the ideology argument as a perceived answer but think of it this way. A man is limping. You ask him why he is limping and he replies “my foot hurts.” Well OK but that really doesn’t get at the heart of the matter does it? Doesn’t it just scratch the surface of the real reason the man’s foot hurts? It is the same with the ideology statement.

...

The columnist then describes the ideology as how terrorism was in the past and how terrorism has changed into what it is now. Deciphering this you can say the man didn’t limp before because his foot didn’t hurt but he does limp now because his foot hurts. This analogy does not state the real problem.

I’m not sure anyone knows why terrorists have changed so quickly but I have a pretty good idea that it is because they really haven’t changed their ideology and have been building up to this point. I think they would have been this cancerous years ago if they would have had the abilities and the confidence to do so.

I agree with the points that the world is becoming a smaller place to live and the terrorists are able to affect more areas with fewer people. “Ideologies” are able to spread rapidly among more people in many different areas. I want to take this concept a step further. How is this different than when cities started springing up all over the world? It isn’t. We have the same problems in the cities that we do with the terrorists. The only difference is the scale of the damage inflicted. Cities are smaller so you don’t really see street criminals blowing up buildings. The world is bigger so logically the crimes would be larger as well.

The article mentions that the terrorists want people to watch what they are doing. I think it can be argued that just about any criminal that commits such public acts wants to be watched…so the scale argument is still valid.

The next issue is the Muslim world and how the article feels that they are cowering and not making their voices heard. Well…yes and no because I truly believe that the terrorists that have taken up such extreme views are no longer Muslim, much like how the Catholic church has so many denominations stemming from it. Once they cross the line of terrorism they are just using “Muslim” as a cloak to hide under. This is especially true when it comes to terror against the United States. The US is a religious haven in which religious beliefs are free and accepted. Whether we are actually viewed that way by the rest of the world I don’t know.

This is something I want to point out; the US allows you to believe anything you want but if you act on certain beliefs you will break the law. For instance, you can’t rob someone and say “my religious beliefs allow me to rob people.”

The final paragraph in the article is ridiculous. This columnist actually compares war efforts to diplomatic efforts dollar to dollar. This analogy is completely off base. Sounding stupid I’m going to state the obvious; war efforts include tens of thousands of soldiers’ payrolls, large and expensive equipment, large and expensive weapons, research and all of the expenses that go along with it. I’d go on but get real. What do diplomatic efforts cost? Plane rides to different locations, some lavish gifts and a stay at some fancy condos or suites? How many diplomats can their possibly be and how can it really cost that much money? That analogy is like comparing fish to humans, we may have came from the same "thing" at some time but the comparison today is hundreds of millions of years off.

Finally, haven’t we already learned our lesson with Iraq and how successful diplomatic measures are with these types of “ideologies”? Haven’t we learned anything in the past 12 years of having our diplomatic measures thrown back in our faces? While looking at it from all angles and trying new things, including diplomatic means, maybe we should focus on what we know will work.