On How to Deal With Terrorism

Posner on the Constitution, a book review.

Instapundit has a good bunch of comments and compliations on the terrorism issue.

But seriously, who's overreacting and puffing out their chests? It would be silly to ignore the Islamo-Fascists who've demonstrated their desire to attack us. Instapundit hits it right when he says, "Before 9/11 -- and what we learned afterward -- I agreed with the basic strategy of trying to contain Islamist terror until it collapsed under the weight of its own stupidity. That was before I realized how widespread it was, and how thoroughly intertwined with hostile states it was. I don't fault the Clinton people for not catching on before I did."

And the thing about 9/11 that was so different from the prior Al Queda attacks was how clever it was. You could see clearly that a mixture of smart planners (KSM and Atta) with good leaders (Bin Laden, Zawahri) could cause such an incredible mess...and all of a sudden it became possible to imagine a much worse scenario given more time, resources, and technology to these groups.

Now maybe, at the very least, you could argue that Al Queda is a unique strand of Islamic Fundamentalism, a freaky one off, like the Blair Witch Project, and we've essentially destroyed that strand and that's the best we can do. Hamas and Hezbollah have no desire to attack the US - so we don't really need to worry about them. Iraq was a complete waste of time and money.

Under that logic you could argue that all the money spent on homeland security, extra airline checks, and so forth is a complete waste, that perhaps we should have put locks on pilots cabins and checked our databases better.

And believe me, I have sympathy for this view. I work at USC, a bureaucratic mess, with untold number of regulations and policies that basically just make it difficult for everyday people to function. There doesn't seem to be any logic to all of it put together - it makes sense from little spheres, but not from a holistic, student or employee approach.

I imagine the Homeland Security Department working the same way, but charged with a semi-impossible task - protect us from attacks. It's a no thanks job. It's a job that isn't appreciated when they're doing it - they're viewed as a burden, but when they don't stop an attack, whether it's their fault or not, well, they're to blame.

Sort of like being a producer on a student movie.

Anyhow, what's the point of all of this?

I certainly think there's been a bit of overreaction in the security apparatus post-9/11, but that's to be expected. The fire department limited Father's Office to only a certain number of patrons until they opened another door. I think that was a bit of an overreaction, too, but that's how the world is. People act and then react and it's not always going to be a perfectly efficient model.

Whether Iraq was an overreaction or not...I still don't think so. I think it's proven a lot tougher and more costly and had we all known what would happen there in hindsight, the realist in me would have balked a little more. But I think the logic for going in intially was solid and wasn't the result of an overreaction to the terrorist threat at all. It made sense in light of the events, the biggest obstacle was and should have been the lack of support from allies.

But anyways, the world goes on, overreaction or not, we learn from our mistakes, get wiser, get older, pass on lessons to the next generation, try do better. What's the big deal?