The Ends of Terror

Some Shiite clerics in Iraq are threatening a generalized attack upon the Sunni's,who dominated the government under Saddam Hussein and who makeup the majority of the terrorists plaguing that country now.

If the Shiite fire eaters get their way, it would represent a victory for the terrorists.

Terrorists get to murder people-- which really turns them on-- but is not their objective.

Terrorists drain the resolve of those forces of law and order whom they oppose, which helps their cause, but still is not their objective.

The true objective of a terrorist is to cause a massive overreaction by state authorities which, they hope, will prompt civil war, anarchy, and a complete reorganization of the society they are terrorizing. In short: they hope to cause a revolution.

Abolitionist John Brown attempted to start a civil war in the 1850s by going on a murder rampage in Lawrence, Kansas. After failing there, he went after a more sensitive target: the Federal armory at Harpers Ferry in Northern Virginia. Though he was captured and hung, the paranoia he provoked accelerated the rate of political disintegration in the Union and ultimately prompted a bloody, chaotic civil war and an achievement of his objectives: the abolition of slavery in the United States.

Anarchists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries plugged away at their little shootings and bombings until they finally hit a major nerve in Sarajevo in 1914. The resulting world war, prompted by the murder of Archduke Frederick Ferdinand, plunged Europe into chaos, caused the collapse of the German, Austrian, Russian, and Ottoman empires, and created the power vacuum which resulted in the Bolshevik takeover of Russia, the projected misery of the Balkan Wars, the near victory of communists in Germany and, ultimately, the real victory of the Nazis in that same Germany.

The terrorists in Palestine are hoping, ultimately, that their continued murders will cause an Israeli Army offensive which will prompt an intervention by the other Arab states, the annihilation of Israel, and the reestablishment of the old, full sized Palestine upon the ashes and corpses of their enemies.

What do the terrorists want in Iraq? America pulling-out would be nice, but they wouldn't stop there. What they really hope for is civil war. That way, the former Baathists and their allies among a small portion of the Sunnis hope to get Syria's help to reinstall the Baath Party and, in their dreams, settle all scores and get back to business as usual.

The Shiite clerics wouldn't mind the civil war part. Only in their scenario, they get Iran's help to wipe out the Sunnis and establish an Islamic republic along the lines of Iran or the old, Taliban -dominated Afghanistan.

Either way, it depends on the U.S. pulling out or over-reacting, and the current, democratic government overreacting and being overthrown.

How could the U.S. overreact? By accelerating the war so far as to cause a backlash in the United States followed by the Democrats winning back congress and the presidency and the U.S. then pulling out of Iraq entirely.

I hear people like Michael Savage often call for the annihilation of a city or two in Iraq or elsewhere. While the idea of the Kabba in Mecca transformed into smoking ruins does give me a certain satisfaction (especially after some major terrorist attack), it would be a big mistake. If we did such a thing, some loser farther to the left than Dennis Kucinich would be our next president, and the entire Arab would soon be dominated by folks who make the Taliban look like Cub Scouts.

What do we do? Root them out, destroy their supply and manpower sources, empower the forces of law and order, wait for them to make mistakes and capitalize on those mistakes.

If we get vicious, it should be in security measures. The Israelis did the right thing with their security wall. If we pinpoint terrorist recruit or supply depots in Syria or Iran, we should hit them. Hard. If we pinpoint such bases in Pakistan, we should give the government there exactly one chance to cooperate with us in destroying those targets. Not just air strikes; but men with bayonets doing search and destroy.

But we should not nuke anybody. Nor should we hit any target which does not provide direct support for the terrorists.

More than anything, we need to show endurance as a society.

Unfortunately, that endurance is sapped by the lefties and antiwar activists who resemble hyperactive four-year-olds who can't stop talking. They go on and on with: "George Bush is an idiot and there were no WMDs and Karl Rove leaked on Valerie Plame and Gitmo is the new Gulag and Iraq is a quagmire and we support the troops even though they are in the wrong war at the wrong time and will never win and they are always committing atrocities and..."

We are the strongest country in the world. Nothing can defeat us but defeatism.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ONE OTHER THING (Monday, 12:47 PM): Abolition was a very good thing. But John Brown was still a psychotic killer whose appointment with the hangman was long overdue.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE (Monday1:53 PM): Speaking of nuking Mecca (bad idea) some Republican Congressman just had the same bad idea. Basic principle: never threaten an act you aren't willing to carry out. Bluffing with nukes is never a smart move.