You Can't Fight Terror With Fear

The quote below jumped out at me while reading an Iranian news article. They're known for exaggeration.

The article elaborates on Hizbullah leader, Hassan Nasrallah's last speech, which according to the newspaper successfully instilled fear throughout the country, even causing several government ministers to relinquish the idea of disarming Hizbullah.

Look how easy we can come up with a definition for terror, an overwhelming feeling of fear and anxiety - but, foolishly, we struggle to define terrorism: a controversial and subjective term with multiple definitions. Are we somehow afraid to admit that it's all about fear?

Read the multiple definitions for terrorism (link above) and you'll see the biggest problem is that we focus on the very acts themselves, losing sight of the more important emotion they are intended to create.

Look at this from former President and Arafat fanatic Bill Clinton today:

The Islamic group Hezbollah's tactics are at the root of the latest bloody conflict in the region, but Clinton also questioned the length to which Israel has gone to defend itself. "It's important for us to get some kind of ceasefire now," Clinton said.

If someone breaks into your home wielding a knife and you have a gun, what's more important ... to get him to sit down on the sofa and sheath the knife, or undertaking whatever action is necessary to see that the knife is no longer a threat to you and won't soon be again?

I know where I come down.

From a practical stand point, fear is the only genuinely significant weapon that most terrorists have. True, they can kill some of us, even over 3,000 at a clip; however, they would have no real hope of defeating the West and other free nations were we to ever develop the mindset to wipe them out.

The only thing stopping us from doing that is fear. And it isn't only fear of some particular act of terrorism. Today, terrorists prey upon a multitude of America's apparent fears. Our politicians and some number of our population fear war. Our diplomats fear being judged harshly by the world. When you boil it all down, it really is all about fear. Our politicians often appear to be as afraid of, if not actually held hostage by the UN and France, as opposed to some religious zealot with an IED - perhaps, even more so.

Calling for an immediate cease fire isn't about finding a solution to the core problem. It's advocating for some state of perceived, though false, equilibrium which forces us to continue living in fear. Why should anyone want that?

There needs to be one simple definition of terrorism: actions undertaken to create an overwhelming feeling of fear and anxiety. Most can agree the only way to combat fear it by confronting it. If it persists, you need to continue to confront it until it's gone - read defeated. There is no other way.

But preoccupied with seeing a cease fire as something always noble, perhaps grown comfortable operating in a world where we are always somewhat afraid, we don't seem to want to confront the fears brought about by the terrorism much of the world is experiencing today.

The half measures we've been pursuing in this arena for decades always leave us precisely where we started out: afraid. And afraid is no way to live.

Obviously, our terrorist enemies know that all too well. I wish we and our politicians would come to appreciate its importance, too.

Comments

[Phoenix]

Nice analysis, Dan.

One of the things that strikes me when I watch scenes from Israel and Lebanon is the number of victims of 'hysteria'. The medics work with that as much, if not more, than with victims of physical injury. It's one thing to 'jump' in fear at a surprise event, but it's another thing to live your life in relentless, chronic fear. It is causing these people to fall apart - hit by shrapnel or not - they are falling apart. Mind shrapnel..... Tragic.

[Kindra]

Excellent article. THANKS for telling it like IT IS.