Just to agree with you, from the little I've read this : "There is a relatively fixed pool of terrorists and mlitants, and once we've defeated them, moderate voices in the country will have a platform and democracy will flourish." from the flypaper theory has almost no basis in reality. I truly don't see how someone could think of that as a viable way of looking at the situation. There's not at all a relatively fixed pool of terrorists, as you've said other places, because of the christmas presen theory as you put it. There is an enormously unfixed, highly fluctuating pool of terrorists that grows and grows as we continue along the trajectory we set for ourselves long ago.

Well, in the defense of those who hold to the flypaper theory, they believe in a relatively fixed set of militants. The ida, I suppose, is to kill militants faster than they arrive on the scene, until a 'tipping point' for stability is reached.

Even with that leavening, however, I don't believe that it's arealistic strategy. As someone (the infamous Someone) said recently, it's like waging a war on germs by creating one really dirty hospital where we can fight infections "on our own terms."

The other concern in my eyes is the moral responsibility we have. If our goal is really to 'fight them on our terms, far from our borders,' we've essentially destabilized another country for the purpose of drawing in dangerous terrorists. We're putting millions of them at risk so that we can fight our preferred style of combat. It's not the be-all-end-all of worries, but it troubles me that proponents of this theory ignore the nation full of innocents caught in the crossfire.

As someone (the infamous Someone) said recently, it's like waging a war on germs by creating one really dirty hospital where we can fight infections "on our own terms."

That particular "Someone" was an alert (but unidentified) reader of Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo. It's quite an apt metaphor, though. A lot of the best memes and turns of phrase are begun by nobody in particular, I suspect. :)

--- Ajax.

*cough* fact of blogs *cough*

;)

I love the names of the theories. Are these your own?

I believe that you are right about inspiring a disproportionate response through terrorism being one effective strategy to build nationalistic fervor. (I think there are others, as well) This is exactly the strategy employed by basque group ETA (unpopular even in Basque country).

But to support your thesis, I offer up this theory:
Q: What do you get when you cross the Amish with the Basque?
A: Hesbala

Some economists have started to explore the economic origins of terrorist organizations. When viewed economically, rather than socio-politically, many fundamentalist groups can be show to be (or have origins in) 'social insurance'.

In American society, if your barn burns down, EVERYONE pays for it when the insurance company pays for it.

In Amish society, if your barn burns down, everyone in the village gets together and toils to rebuild it. You will pay for it when their barn burns down.

*Ahem. I'm about to generalizing egregiously.*
Apparently, many Muslim cultures have fullfilled this social insurance function through a religious community. The Italian Mafia used to be a benign organization with the same functions (Mafia meant "generous"). And... like the mafia, these organizations developed extra-legal branches to 'protect' their cultures.

These militant branches now may have non-civic-minded motivations, but they still derive whatever support they have among the populace from the perception that they are the "last-line-of-defense".

This is the longwinded way of saying, if we pay to put their barn back up (this doesn't include barns or mosques that we knocked down ourselves), we knee-cap Joe Jihadi. And none of this "economic stimulus"... We could directly dole out 'social insureance'. They're already on the dole from oil money in some fundamentalist centralist muslim governments.

One problem with this approach is that we might be, in effect, facilitating secularization for our own ends.
Oh well. Pax americana. It's easier than trying to kill them all. But it's going to be a lot more expensive now that we've made so MANY *friends*.

I've heard it referred to as the Flypaper approach etc, and heard people refer to Iraq as a Christmas present for Bin Ladin, but I've not yet read an article that specificlaly compares-and-contrasts them by name.

I agree, by the way, that terrorists didn't start the fight in Iraq -- I suppose that statement was more of a rhetorical one. I've often heard it said that the terrorists are hurting their own communities, and thus should be ostracized. That view fails to recognize the broader context in which the acts occur, though -- a perception of occupation and subjugation that gains more mindshare with each disproportionate response.

fascinating bit of insight about the social insurance concept, too. I've thought for a while that one of the only ways to bring longer-term stability is to offer/support/encourage alternative memes for social and cultural unity in the muslim world.

but zow, if that isn't a complicated question, too...

Can you think of two better people for the casting call of "nobody in particular"? :)

--- Ajax.

As a Christian, I respectfully disagree.

The forces of Islamofacism respond to violence with violence, right? But we have also seen time and time again that the forces of Islamofacism respond to nonviolence with violence. A failure to retaliate against their attacks begets bigger and bolder attacks. We saw this throughout the 90s, ultimately culminating with 9/11.

To say that a peaceful end can be reached by pursuing peace with the poison branch of Islam is to attribute a quality to that branch that it does not posess.

I believe that this war has to be fought on two fronts, one from the outside in, one from the inside out. Mainstream Islam's dismantling of radical Islam is something that has to happen, but I am not willing to bet on mainstream Islam cleaning house as the sole solution, simply because I'm watching for that very thing and not seeing it.

The U.S. fights for the sake of peace. We always have. The forces of Islamofacism fight for the sake of killing infidels. We regret having to do it. They see glory in it.

I would love for there to be a solution that doesn't involve fighting. But history says otherwise, and I am not willing to accept the deliberate killing of innocents in the pursuit of an idealistic outcome.

It's a little of both, to be honest. It just depends on which side of the battlefield you're on.

To US Military strategists, it's flypaper. Now that we're there, terrorist insurgents are going to make their way to the country to fight their "Jihad" and try to 'liberate' the country from the 'grips of opressing infidel Americans'. It's not an assumption; so far, it has been a proven fact that it's happening.

Now you have large groups of terrorists (and some recruits to boot) that are in a country policed largely by the US. We have free room to operate how we please in said country, and can thus react accordingly to perceived terrorist threats. No worries about sneaking in a SEAL or other special ops team into foreign territory, trying to strike at camps with cruise missiles and so forth. Nope, it's open ground and we have people there to attack with.

Terrorists see it as a christmas present. They now have an effective tool for recruiting. But where are a good number of recruits going? Iraq. They're going in with older hardcore militants and they'll most likely die. Will Iraq help be the end-all, be-all of eradication of Muslim radical fundamentalists? Hardly. But will it help? I'm pretty sure it will.

But that's just me. Your mileage may vary. :)