No run this AM as it's my rest day, but I have been ruminating over this concept for a few days. Answer any or all questions that you like in a comment below:
- What is it that is so very wrong about this pre-emptive war strategy to defeat terrorism?
- Might it not be that we are using the wrong device?
- An eye for an eye is easy to use as justification for using a bigger stick, but doesn't that slogan work both ways, and for all parties at either end of the stick?
- If we are always threatening a bigger stick, might not our enemies seek to trump our stick with a more grizzly and gruesome set of weapons all of their own invention (read, IEDs, or the "Hey, let's kidnap with intent to drill into GIs heads" strategy)?
- So, really, it might be that the war and fear mongering driven W, Rove and Co. administration is approaching the whole "war on terror" in the wrong way. In fact, shouldn't we be seeking a better carrot rather than a stronger stick?
- Moreover, if the existing carrot is rotten to the core, and we present a rotten carrot while threatening the stick, what does that get us: a) an end to the war on terror, or b) an indefinite, endless conflict that breeds only more pissed off and motivated terrorists?
- If we were to spend as much capital on building a better carrot rather than wielding a bigger stick, what would that carrot look and feel like?
- Would a better carrot be a swifter way to peace, that is, if peace is truly the objective?