Hobson's Choice

The recent attacks in Great Britain got me thinking about terrorism, specifically foreign terrorism. Here’s what I’m coming up with – I’d really like someone to point out my errors.

Assumption #1: In our society, constructing an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) with sufficient power to kill or maim large numbers of people is a trivially simple exercise.

Analysis: High-powered explosives are somewhat controlled. However, ammonia-based explosives are simple to make from easily-available materials. Gasoline, propane, and other fuels can also be used to develop explosive devices. Ample material to provide fragmentation effects can be found in any hardware store or junkyard. While mass purchases of some of these materials (e.g. ammonia-based fertilizer) might be controlled, a series of smaller purchases over a longer period of time could provide raw materials for an IED of any desired size.

Assumption #2: Emplacing such an IED is also a trivially simple exercise.

Analysis: So-called “important” targets are increasingly protected. Government buildings, large office buildings, airports, power plants, chemical facilities…the list of protected sites is seemingly endless, but the key word is “seemingly.” Schools, shopping centers, fairgrounds, parade routes, smaller office buildings, restaurants, bars – even just an area on the road that frequently suffers traffic jams – are all possible targets for a terrorist attack. There’s just no way to protect all of them.

Assumption #3: Foreign terrorists bear sufficient enmity against the United States that any form of engagement between our country and theirs is sufficient to encourage terrorist acts against us.

Analysis: This one is purely my opinion – but I think it is nonetheless correct. Our support for Israel, our financial and political involvement with several Middle Eastern countries, and the immense popularity and availability of our entertainment media all provide ample sources of outrage for Islamic fundamentalists. While other sources of foreign terrorism in the U.S. may exist, they are so much rarer that I don’t see a need to analyze the roots of their hatred for us.

Conclusion: Foreign terrorists will continue to attack our nation and our allies as long as any significant contact remains between our culture and theirs. While some attacks may be stopped through luck, good police work, or incompetent terrorists, others will inevitably succeed. This may someday be stopped by the foreign culture adopting more democratic and liberal principles – but that will not be soon, and is unlikely to come from our direct intervention.

Responses:

1. Status Quo. We can accept some level of innocent casualties as a cost of doing business in the regions from which the terrorists come. While our intelligence and police forces will improve their capabilities, so will the terrorists. As long as our basic political structure is unchanged, our open society is vulnerable to attack. The question becomes – how many dead citizens are a fair price for supporting Israel, exporting TV shows, and importing oil? And how long are we willing to pay that price while we wait for them to turn away from violence?

2. Disengage. That entails cutting down our crude oil usage by about two thirds, to live off our own domestic production – if we continue to import any oil at all, the fungible nature of the product means that some of it will come from the Middle East. It means cutting off Israel from our support – and thus likely leading to the use of one or more nuclear bombs when Israel is forced to defend itself without the threat of allies coming to assist. It means cutting off all immigration, student visas, and even tourist visas from the area, lest some of them become contaminated by our culture and then return to spread that contamination. I suppose we can ask the countries involved to handle censoring TV, books, and movies, and provide our assistance in censoring the Internet. Politically and economically, I think this one is beyond any realistic expectation.

3. Retaliate. Announce to the world that any country or culture that attacks us with acts of terrorism will in turn be attacked. Violently, and without too much regard for the nature of the targets. I’m pretty sure that we could strike fear into the heart of the most rabid terrorist – if a ten to one casualty ratio isn’t enough, how about a hundred to one? Thousand to one? An air raid over Mecca and Medina? We have the physical means to do whatever it takes to get their attention. Only political will and morality prevent it.

Of course, such violence breeds anger and resentment, which breeds more terrorists. That could end up as a genocidal war.

Is there a flaw in my assumptions? My conclusion? A fourth response? I don’t like any of the answers I’ve come up with – I could really use another one. Anyone?

Commander-in-Chief

Anybody watch the premiere of "Commander-in-Chief" last night? I did. If you taped it, then the rest of this entry may contain spoilers, so go watch your tape first.

I'm not sure I'm going to like the show. Of course, anything that has Geena Davis in it will keep my attention for at least a few episodes. And I enjoyed some of the moral, ethical, and political questions the first hour raised - if they keep that up, I'll keep watching.

For instance, if the President asks his Vice-President to resign rather than take over, does the Vice-President have a moral obligation to agree? After all, the President chose her for the job, he should be able to fire her. On reflection, though, I find I agree with the show's answer - the Vice-President has every right to maintain her office and ascend to the Presidency. The situation rather reminded me of one of my military pet peeves - people who join the military (to include the Reserves and National Guard) for the paycheck, or the college money, or whatever, then try to back out when they find out they've been picked to go to war. President Bridges picked Mrs. Allen to be the Vice-President as a stunt, sure. But if he didn't give at least some thought to the possibility of his own death in office, well, then his judgement isn't all that good, anyway!

Another moral question that came up - is it right for the President to use the threat of military force to save the life of a woman who is going to be stoned to death for adultery? Let's ask that another way. Is it proper for the President to threaten a friendly (or at least neutral) nation with an act of war to save the life of a criminal convicted of a capital crime under the due process of her own country? It's amazing how much the wording of the question changes the answer, isn't it? I think she was wrong, there. I don't believe we have the automatic right to use our superpower might to dictate all forms of justice in another country. There is a difference between genocide and execution of an individual. However mild we believe her crime was, the woman did know the penalty for her act before she committed it. Using our military force in such a way makes us little more than a bully.

On the other hand, I don't believe we have any obligation to maintain diplomatic or trade relations with countries that we feel are barbaric. We're a capitalist nation, and business is business. Just like any businessman or customer, we have every right to decide who we choose to do business WITH. Cutting off foreign aid and trade to a given country and to those who continue to support them might well do more damage in the long run than an extended bombing campaign, and certainly more than an invasion consisting of three helicopters. The moral and ethical principles involved, though, make that option the better choice, in my opinion.

A related question. If Nigeria was not only executing the woman, but the man as well, would that change the moral principle? Would President Allen still have wanted to go rescue her? Or should she rescue both of them, or neither? I tend to believe that what's good for the goose is good for the gander...and if the same law applied to both genders, then we'd really have nothing to complain about.

There were some problems with the show, though. Worse than making the wrong decision about the Nigerian woman, I don't think President Allen thought through the consequences of that decision, and the show made no mention of them. As if we could do such a thing and not have a huge backlash against us in the international press, especially in the Muslim countries! That might be covered in later episodes, though, so I'll withhold judgement on that one.

The worst problem was the believability of the basic premise. I just can't conceive of any party politician choosing an Independent as his running mate. Surely there was a female member of his own party that would have sufficed! I understand the dramatic necessity here - they need the conflict between the party warhorse, Speaker Templeton, and the Independent President. But couldn't they have managed much the same with a hardline Conservative President selecting a moderate from his own party? She could even have made public statements that disagreed with the party platform. We could still have had the conflict between the late President's beliefs and those of his VP, and thus between the new President and the Speaker of the House, but it would have been mch more believable within the political structure we know.

My biggest concern, though, is one I got from my dad, that this will turn out to be an extended campaign ad for Hillary Clinton. As long as President Allen stays independent, doing things to outrage each party in turn, or even both at once, I can enjoy it. If it turns into a mouthpiece for either party, though, I'm done.