Another "Irresponsible," Thoughtful and Logical Contribution...

...to The Conversation That Some Think We Shouldn't Be Having

Macho Nachos:

[W]hen dealing with Islamofascists, the equation gets a little trickier - because as we can plainly see, a lot of these Islamofascists don't have the most well-developed sense of self-preservation. They think nothing of the value of their own lives, or even the lives of their spiritual brothers and sisters, so long as it goes to further their own cause. That is why they have no qualms about detonating bombs in or near mosques, or flying planes into buildings occupied at least partly by Muslims. To them, a few (or many) deaths in the name of Islam is worth the price to spread their radical brand of Islam into the world.

To put it succinctly, their brand of Islam is the only thing in the world they can be threatened with. They could care less if Riyadh or Tehran were turned into seas of glass. On the other hand, the destruction of Mecca and their other irreplacable holy sites might be the only notion that would give a terrorist who is actually dedicated and cunning enough to successfully manage a nuclear detonation on U. S. soil pause for thought.

So, whem Tom Tancredo makes these remarks, and is widely condemned by people on both sides of the ideological spectrum, a strategic response is effectively removed from the table. This is horrible policy in Nuclear warfare - in which the only effective means of deterrence is convincing your enemy that no measure of response is so draconian that it will be removed from the table.

Comments

[A Proud Veteran]

I like what he says, but at the same time I seem to recall that the only problem with bluffing is that sometimes the other person will call your bluff.

[Justin]

Unfortunately, that is the reasoning of a terrorist: destroy something with little military connection to your enemy (and kill lots of innocent civilians) to achieve an end. Now, at times, killing innocent civilians is necessary in war (e.g., WWII). But I just can't see the moral justification for threatening to destroy a holy site because 1% of that religion's followers are dangerous nutcases.

Plus, does ANYONE really think a terrorist would be deterred by such a threat. These guys are ready to kill themselves and their fellow muslims. An Islamo-fascist would love for the US to keep making threats against Mecca--it's a perfect recruitment tool for drifting, underemployed Muslims living in western Europe.

[baldilocks]

It would only be bluffing if we did not have the firepower necessary.

Justin: No one is talking moral justification here. We're talking "make the enemy think twice about whatever he's thinking about doing."

[Francis W. Porretto]

YES! Someone who gets it!

And we wouldn't be bluffing, believe me. If a WMD were set off on American soil, the missiles would be in flight before you could say "full retaliatory response." Anything less and the American people would burn Washington to the ground.

It is the worst imaginable betrayal for a government, which claims the monopoly over the use of force within its borders, to sit passively while its citizens are being slaughtered. American politicians might be preponderantly stupid and venal, but they're clever enough to know that we'd never forgive them for a failure to retaliate against a nuclear attack on our soil. What better retaliatory targets than Mecca and Medina, which are nestled neatly within Saudi Arabia, whence the overwhelming majority of terrorists and the overwhelmingly greater part of support for them has issued for more than a decade?

[baldilocks]

Justin: your last paragraph has inspired me.

[AH·C]

Baldi, feeling rather like the prophets of Ye Olde Testaments? ;)

You know, they tended to have this 'obnoxious' habit of stirring up a complacent people, telling them to:
"Wake up!"
"The hour is at hand!"
"Repent!"
"Take action before doom strikes!".

Sometimes the people responded and were saved, sometimes they ignored the prophets AND prophetesses to their great regret.

Looks like this subject will be one of our defining lines in the sand over the future of civilization. So let's bring it on.

I guess our motto should be: "Strawmen and stones may break my bones, but ad hominems never hurt me. We'll keep preaching "Irresponsibly" till our mis-guided friends come to their senses or till Kingdom comes." :D

[AH·C]

Justin, it would seem evident that you don't understand how a muslim, let alone a terrorist thinks. Sort of like the old saw: "If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand!"

To figure out how to deter someone, you have to look at it from their eyes, their worldview and value system. Looking at it from American sensitivities will only ensure your continued disadvantage.

What has Osama been saying all these years? That muslims will only follow a strong horse. No mention was ever made of a moral horse. This is how Wahhabism has been proliferating over the last 30 years, upsetting and infecting other strains of islam with their viral fever.

AH-C--maybe you're right that I'm not sure how a terrorist thinks. But I think that I am trying to look at it through their eyes.

Look, any country that had a self preservation instint (e.g., the former USSR) would be deterred by a nuclear threat. The US and USSR never engaged in outright war because of that. Islamic terrorists, however, do not appear to have that survivial instinct. Their whole aim is to disrpupt, kill and cause a global war between Islam and the west. I think that these people would welcome an attack on Mecca, or at the very least welcome US politicians talking about nuking Mecca. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't actually know any terrorists.

Besides, the threat of nuking a religious site in retaliation for a WMD terrorist attack just isn't credible, or maybe it is, who knows. Many people in the Muslim world already believe the worst about the US, so maybe they would also believe that we would indiscriminately slaughter millions of muslims because someone in their religion committed a terrorist act.

[A Proud Veteran]

Juliette said: It would only be bluffing if we did not have the firepower necessary.

It's not enough to have the firepower necessary, imo. We have to also have the resolve to use it. THAT depends on who's the president at the time, I think. Would Dubya invoke the nuclear option? Possibly. Would Clinton (male for female)? Probably not. So for Clintons, it would be an empty bluff. For a Dubya or a Reagan, it might work.