It seems that nearly every week either Osama bin Laden or Aymen al-Zawahri (Al Qaeda leaders), Abu Ayyub al-Masri (successor to Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi) or Hassan Nasrallah (leader of Hezbollah) releases some statement rallying their respective organizations and assuring the world that they are each day coming closer to victory over the West. What differentiates these recent claims from earlier ones? The fact that they're true.
How is it that a ragtag group whose primary weapons consist of the same rifles and explosives used by the Soviet Union is managing to outfight and outmaneuver the most powerful military in the world? Quite simply, we just aren't putting up a fight. That's not to say that we aren't spending money on fighting terror -- to the contrary, we've wasted billions of dollars in pointless flopping around, claiming that our efforts are making America a safer place.
After all, who would contend that recent airport security measures haven't made us even safer than we were before Sept. 11? It is difficult to believe that the American government could find a way to improve the old "did you pack your own bags" interrogation, but improve it they did. Now every wheelchair-bound old woman, Girl Scout and American soldier who wants to blow up an airplane faces the same rigid standards of inspection as would anybody else. Great use of tax money there, don't you agree?
And let's not forget how much safer Americans are from terrorism thanks to military efforts in Iraq. I am, actually, of the opinion that removing Saddam Hussein from power was in America's interests. Just like I'm of the opinion that flossing improves somebody's general well-being. However, just as flossing is substantially less important than other measures (such as eating and breathing, to name a couple), Saddam was more of a nuisance to American interests than were legitimate targets, like Iran, Syria or Lebanon.
A legitimate target is just that. Those who argue that war -- against terrorism or otherwise -- must be an absolute last resort, and must be as limited as possible are the ones who make terrorism possible. If the United States and Israel were allowed to respond to terror threats appropriately, then such safe havens for terrorism as Iran, Syria and Lebanon would currently be out of commission. And the rest of the world would be safe.
Striking Iraq was like attacking a sneeze when the real enemy was the viral cold. The sneezes are gone, but the cold remains. Osama bin Laden wanted an American invasion of Iraq. Now that American soldiers are on the streets of Baghdad, his suicide bombers have a target in the region. He has an outlet for Iranian-supplied improvised explosive devices (also known as IEDs, or roadside bombs), which have been the number-one killer of American soldiers in Iraq. And he has a rallying call to raise new recruits for his movement.
So what is the response? It is not, as the American left would argue, to pull out of the region entirely. That would be almost as detrimental as staying our current course, as the right wing would have us do. The response is unwavering force to unapologetically and permanently destroy the infrastructure that makes terrorism possible. This means destroying those nations that harbor and support terrorism, as well as removing the means for terrorist networks to shackle and cripple us. Step One, therefore, is to do everything we can to prevent bodies like the United Nations from constraining our action.
Perhaps the nations of Europe -- with the possible exception of England -- are willing to bend over backward to accommodate terrorist demands. It still sickens me how Spain responded to the Madrid train bombings that al-Qaeda orchestrated to manipulate their elections in March of 2004.
No more. Let us finally and decisively strike back at our enemies who would stab us in our sleep. Let us stop playing this game of appeasement. Finally, once and for all, let us actually fight a war on terrorism. For the war has begun; we just haven't shown up on the battlefield yet.Harrison Bradlow is the Vice President of the JHU Objectivist Club. He is a junior economics major from Tampa, Fl.
