Stardate 20010913.2257 (On Screen): My generally hawkish attitude towards using military force against the bin Laden organization and my essay on terrorism regarding Israel seem on the face of it to be contradictory. But they are not equivalent cases. My
essay on terrorism describes cases where the terrorist groups live in an occupied country and are attempting to fight against their oppressors within that country in order to accomplish a political goal. That's the situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories now, for instance, and what I wrote about it (that forceful responses by the occupying power were pointless) is true. But that is not the situation with bin Laden's war against the US.
Bin Laden's struggle against the US is Jihad. He has no goal; he's just piling up points in heaven each time he strikes a blow against us. There is no political objective to his campaign; the US couldn't appease him even if it were willing to do so. Moreover, he and his people do not live here. So in a sense, his struggle against the US isn't really "terrorism" in the technical sense of the word, although it uses some of the same tactics as a true terrorist campaign: unusual attacks, cells and so on.
Even if the US were willing to negotiate, there's nothing to talk about. There isn't any common ground; there isn't anything the US could offer in negotiation which would satisfy him. So the US has to fight. But let's be clear that this will be a long struggle. It will be extremely difficult to wipe out his organization; it may take years, and in the mean time they are likely to launch further attacks against the US. Some of those may succeed and then there will be more crushed bodies on the streets of US cities. But even if we don't fight, his organization will do that anyway and they'll do more of it because their organization will be intact. The US will attack bin Laden's organization because there is nothing else whatever that the US can do to try to abate the threat. (discussion in progress)
