USS Clueless              Voyages of a restless mind

Main: normal long no graphics Contact Log archives Best log entries Other articles Site Search

Stardate 20011106.1551 (On Screen via long range sensors, and On Viewer via motion sensors): Exhibit A: Professor Bruce Ackerman of Yale University writes that the proper response to the 9/11 attack is to turtle up: to withdraw from the world and firm up our defenses, thus preventing any future attacks on us. Since this will consume all our resources, obviously there will be none left over for external aggression and thus we should not fight any other wars elsewhere. Then we can be safe and sound behind our armored walls here in America and ignore without needing to annihilate those who seek to do us ill, relying on the CIA and FBI to sniff out their plots and prevent them from coming to fruition.

That, of course, doesn't answer the question of what happens to all the Americans who would be risking their lives going overseas for tourism, or to study, or for business reasons; nor about all the investments we have around the world which could be attacked. (Minor details.)

Professor Ackerman is an ass. A perfect defense isn't possible. The only way to guarantee that a threat doesn't attack you in future is to remove that threat. The core of Ackerman's argument against international action is that it is akin to trying to capture a bubble of mercury under your thumb; no matter where you do it, it slips to the side and goes somewhere else. There's some truth to that, but nothing like as much as Professor Ackerman thinks, since the kinds of large operations we're really trying to prevent require considerable assets and infrastructure and organization and pretty much can be prevented at the source. We can't prevent everyone in the world from hating us and having weekly meetings where they vent about how evil we are, but those kinds of groups won't be flying planes into buildings.

But don't take my word for it. Henry Kissinger describes in concrete terms how this is not a quagmire war with no discernable objective for victory. His point is well taken: the primary goal of this war is to make all nations of the world agree to not harbor or tolerate such organizations within their borders, or fundraising for them, or training bases, or other kinds of assets.

The mistake Professor Ackerman is making is one of all-or-nothing; he rejects the idea that a partial success is worthwhile. If as a result of the upcoming war only one US city is nuked instead of two or three, that's worthwhile. It's not a victory, but it's far from a defeat.

It's promising that those opposing the war are actually beginning to propose alternatives. Next mission is for them to propose credible alternatives. (discuss)