Todd brought up an interesting point in one of his comments, the West has yet to come up with an adequate form of deterrence against terrorist assaults that is both effective and morally acceptable. The idea that a strong well prepared armed forces is the best guarantee to peace, and as an extension of that, that a balance of power makes War too awful to contemplate ( An idea that came to the fore with the ghastly result of World War I but was then refined and simplified to produce the horrific "Mutually Assured Destruction", where the certainty of a global nuclear holocaust was meant to chasten those among the super powers who hoped for a first strike. ) is an idea that has no power against a stateless terrorist entity. This is particularly true to a group which is dedicated to giving their lives for their cause. What threat is potent enough to stay such determination? Adolf Hitler wrote that in regards to partisan attacks in the territories his armies occupied "whatever worked" was what was to be done. This evolved in France, but even more violently in the East, into a system of hostages held in certain townships who would be shot in many multiples for every German killed or act of sabotage perpetrated. While surely monstrous, one wonders if it was even effective, for it doesn't seem to have appreciably slowed partisan activity and assuredly turned the populace more heavily against the occupying armies. Echos of this extreme response exist in present day. Seven years ago Thomas Friedman wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times describing the father of the current Syrian "President's" method in dealing with terrorist attacks emanating from a certain city, Hama. He ringed the city with troops, and then shelled it into submission, 15,000 to 20,000 Syrians are estimated to have died. The Op-Ed went on to note that Terrorist attacks from that city ceased. A few years later a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed tackled the problem more squarely and finished by considering the idea that the United States should publicly state that if a terrorist attack involving WMD occurs on American soil the response would be a Nuclear strike on the Muslim holy city of Mecca. It would seem to me that such a declaration would not be believed, but if it was would create such fear and loathing in the Muslim world as to completely negate the statements purpose.
There is something in the human psyche, perhaps particularly in the West, that craves the simplicity of the action unhampered by morality and law, as if such limits inherently impede just accomplishment. In our future considerations of how best to protect ourselves from terrorist attacks and in our responses to attacks here and abroad, we should not be so quick to accept policies which go against our country's understanding of morality and justice in hopes of greater safety. It would cheapen what we fight to save. Still, the problem of deterring those men and women who would do us harm and die for it will not fade quick, as the somber, bloodied hotels of Mumbai unfortunately reveal.
