John Edwards’ Terror Plan
The script for this writes itself: Critics on the right will call it “the hug-a-terrorist strategy.†Idealists on the left will applaud Edwards for striking at the “root causes†of terrorism.
Both will miss the point, just as the former Senator’s proposal for 10,000 volunteers to help people in underdeveloped countries misses the point about terrorism.
His re-treaded Peace Corps solution recalls the old Yiddish joke about the bystander who keeps yelling at those treating a heart-attack victim to give him an enema. When an exasperated doctor asks how an enema would help a dying man, the answer is “It couldn’t hoit.â€
Investing in poverty-stricken areas “couldn’t hoit,†but it won’t make a dent, as Edwards hopes, in persuading millions of people “sitting on the fence†to become our friends instead of terrorist enemies.
This morning, I received an e-mail from Kiva about the status of my micro-loans to small-business owners in Togo, Ecuador, Samoa and the Ukraine. Reaching out to help others is an American tradition but, as a solution to terrorism, it’s a band-aid on a gaping wound.
Bush’s Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told a conference on Asian security last weekend, “One of the disturbing things about many of the terrorists… is that these are not ignorant, poor people. These are educated people, often from professional families. So dealing with poverty and those issues is not going to eliminate the problem, but it certainly can reduce the pool of people prepared to give their lives for this cause.”
So all cynicism about political motives aside, give Edwards an “A†for altruism but a “C†for coherence.
Cross posted from my blog.
6 Responses to “John Edwards’ Terror Plan”
Ah yes… helping people in the Middle East has no hope of helping stem the tide of terrorism.
Let’s keep killing them instead. That’s worked really well so far.
Robert – I interpreted Edwards as NOT “hug a terrorist” but to hug the people with whom the terrorist lives and operates. Ultimately, success aaginst terrorists worldwide is going to be dependent on muslims themselves taking on the terrorists and defeating them. We cannot do it alone and it will be important to give support to these “moderate” muslims in the form of economic and political support.
If we can convince the majority of muslims in the world that they would be better off helping eradicate terrorists, the problem will be far better handled than the clumsy US military can do. For example I have some Christian Lebanese friends who are supportive of Hezballah. The only reason they are is their fear of the Israelis/US is far greater than their fear of Hezballah who they know will at least defend Lebanon.
Until the US can convince Lebanese Christians that we are the “good guys” they, and other Lebanese, will not defang Hezballah. You can take this same scenerio to other Muslim countries. We have NOT shown muslims we care about their needs and interests, only our own or Israel. We need to show in as many tangible ways as possibile our friendship and help are not just words. So far we have done a very poor job of it. Our motto of do what we want or we’ll kill you isn’t cutting the mustard.
So under President Edwards we’ll be importing many more illiterate peasants — along with the occasional terrorist cell — and exporting idealists who’ll serve as easy pickings for hostage-taking jihadis in States That Hate The Great Satan â„¢. Sounds like a plan to me.
I agree that the only people who can stem the tide of Islamic terrorism are the Muslims themselves, but it’s unrealistic to think that any impact on the situation will be felt in our lifetime. In order for that to happen, Islam itself must be reformed by the moderates to reflect a more modern outlook, and that will never happen with any efficacy. Changing one word of the Quran and Hadith is not allowed. If a very brave group of moderates manages to undertake that effort, they will be labeled by the orthodox as blasphemers and apostates, which if you don’t know you should, brings with it a death sentence. This is a circular battle, we will never be completely free of it.
Edwards plan, as with any western plan put forth so far, ascribes a western mentality to a people who couldn’t be further from it. The two paradigms don’t mix.
For some problems there are no good solutions, we can only try to limit the damage in our own land.
beaux510 – I think you are vastly overestimating the number of Jihadists and fundemental muslims in the world. I know many muslims in Lebanon, Turkey, Indonesia and India. I used to be in charge of International operations for a very large financial company. I did business with these people, made friends and had numerous discussions with them on world affairs. A very high percentage of muslims do not take the Koran literally, just as with most Christians and Jews.
I still think working with moderate muslims (probably 90+% of the total) is a far better solution than primarily using a military approach. You may be right that it might take a generation or two to put a lid on Islamic terrorism but playing “wack a mole” with our military will NEVER solve the problem.
beaux510 – I don’t quite follow your point about reforming Islam. The Qur’an prohibits killing noncombatants in war, so Muslims don’t need to accept modern ideas in order to reject terrorism. All they have to do is to follow the dictates of the Qur’an.