Responses

This post at NRO's The Corner reminds me of a though-process I worked through shortly after 9/11:

A reader provides a good breakdown.

"I think there are four possible responses to terrorism: "1. Do what they want. If their goals are limited and discrete, and the cost of giving into their demands is less than the cost of resistance, complying with the terrorists's demands solves the problem. Here, terrorism works. "

2. Do nothing. Accept a certain level of death and destruction indefinitely. Use criminal law within your own country to punish who can catch, and that's all. It's hard to say whether this means terrorism is 'working' or not. Since the terrorists aren't really suffering any consequences and they're inflicting casualties, I say terrorism is working here too. "

3. Kill every last terrorist and eliminate the breeding grounds for terrorists. Probably the most expensive option. You have to send military or paramilitary forces all over the place, angering lots of people and suffering casualties. It takes a long time and you're never really sure when you're done. The terrorists may eventually be defeated, but it costs plenty of blood and treasure. Does terrorism work here? Beats me."

4. Make the cost of terrorism to the terrorists much greater than the benefits. For example, carpet bomb or nuke something important to them if they attack. If you're credible, this is a very reliable method. Problem is, credibility means you have to do it once, killing thousands or tens of thousands of noncombatants. Definitely a case of terrorism not working. "

Nobody in the West is willing to do #4, and of the few who are capable of doing #3, most of them don't bother. So, if most countries are generally using only #1 and #2, and #3 is uncommon and a wash anyway, then it's only natural that terrorism, on the whole, works."

In the uncertain weeks after 9/11, I wondered exactly what would and should the response of a US President be to a nuclear terror attack on US soil. Imagine it; a Boston or San Francisco or even a mid-size American city is destroyed by a nuclear explosion. How would we respond? How should we respond?

In a very general sense, I'm a fan of #4. Part of why we never directly fought the Soviet Union is that people (on both sides to be clear) were made to understand that the price of such a fight was too high for both sides. I don't sense that the principle is inapplicable in this fight.

So back to my post-9/11 reflections. Assume an American city has been destroyed. What's the response? Do you think it reasonable to respond in-kind, choosing a target of high importance to the Muslim world? Would it be fair to target a Mecca, or Medina?

Would we be within our rights to tell the world via our response that such nuclear terrorism is utterly and completely out-of-bounds and will not be tolerated? Most importantly, would it work?

Lots of questions, no real answers; certainly no easy ones.