Fighting the Irrational Rationally

Terrorism is a terrible problem that isn't going to go away any time soon. It's the poor man's power - a way for small numbers of very focused and fanatical people to spread fear and wield influence far in excess of their numbers. It's cheap and easy to use and fiendishly difficult to fight effectively. So how do we fight it?

An interesting article appeared yesterday on the Project Syndicate website: "Re-Thinking Counter-Terrorism," by Bjorn Lomborg and Todd Sandler. In their article, Lomborg and Sandler advocate spending counter-terrorism money differently, pointing out that while the billions of dollars spent on homeland security since 2001 created an initial drop in the number of terrorist attacks, the actual number of deaths rose, on average, each year. The reason is fairly obvious: as it becomes harder to board an airliner, embassies and other official buildings are turned into fortresses, and "hard" infrastructure targets are made ever harder, the terrorist simply turns his (or her) attention to softer targets which can have higher casualty counts: suicide bombings in markets and restaurants, and so on.

Lomborg and Sandler advocate spending proportionately less money on making individual targets harder, and more on actions that will undercut the "appeal" of terrorists by removing the rationale for their actions, working to achieve greater international cooperation in fighting terrorism, and doing more to project a positive image of the U.S. and fight the very slick and effective propaganda employed by the terrorists.

These are certainly worthwhile measures that need to be taken. It's clear that fanatical terrorists can breed faster than we can kill them, and so a purely military approach is unlikely to achieve complete success. Nevertheless, there are some people who are so focused on their grievances, so convinced of the righteousness of their cause, and so intent on committing murder they believe is sanctioned by their politics or their religion, that they are beyond the appeal of rational argument. As English essayist Sydney Smith once said, "Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It was not reasoned into him, and cannot be reasoned out." Or, as they say more simply in Texas, "Some people just need killin'."

Lomborg and Sandler advocate greater international cooperation in strangling terrorist finances, extraditing captured terrorists for trial, and cracking down on the illegal activities which allow them to function (things like drug trafficking, counterfeiting of goods, kidnapping for ransom, etc). They note that such cooperation will be difficult to achieve "because nations jealously guard their autonomy over police and security matters," noting that "a single non-cooperating nation could undo much of others' efforts." This is true, but it also misses the point that some nations profit from these illegal activities, and often support (whether openly or clandestinely) the efforts and activities of the terrorists. These are the nations whose cooperation we most need, and are least likely to get. It's hard to imagine a blustering buffoon like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, now exposed as a supporter of the deadly FARC guerrillas in Colombia, cooperating with the U.S. and other nations in this way.

Somewhat more practical and achievable is the suggestion for the United States and other Western nations to either increase their humanitarian aid to developing nations, or target it better. Lomborg and Sandler note that U.S. aid, for instance, "...is highly skewed toward countries that support America's foreign policy agenda." They advocate spending the same or more money on direct action to fight hunger, poverty, and disease, granting the money without strings attached. I believe there is real merit in this suggestion, except for the "no strings attached" part...experience has shown that cash supplied without condition often disappears into the overseas numbered accounts of ruling elites rather than being applied to the needs of their populations. We need to share our bounty with the rest of the world, but we need to do it with our eyes open. We need to offer inspiration and an alternative to the way of the terrorist, something we don't do well.

We need a foreign policy and a counter-terrorism approach that is, as the authors say, "smarter and more inspirational."

We'll never be able to reach everyone and change their minds. For an example of the sort of mindset we're unlikely to change, read this transcript of a debate between Arab-American Psychiatrist Wafa Sultan, Egyptian Islamist Tal'at Rmeih, and the host of a program on Al-Jazeera TV.

None of the ideas espoused by Sandler and Lomberg in their article are new, but they've been crowded aside by the more emotionally satisfying approach that focuses on military and police action...what we sometimes call "visually pleasing destruction." But when the purely military approach fails, perhaps it's time to look at the alternatives with a new appreciation for their potential.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo