In Arduis Fidelis - "War" on "Terror"

I could wish that someone else had put up this stuff, but it's a 'downsize government, states rights' group which did. Unfortunately for many people on the left that will dilute what I believe is the essential correctness of their statements, ones like:

"Nearly 800,000 people have died in car accidents in the last twenty years. During that time there have been exactly two Islamic terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, with less than 3,000 total fatalities. That's more than 200 TIMES as many Americans dying in their cars as at the hands of Islamic terrorism. And yet . . .

We've turned the whole world upside down in response to the two terrorist attacks. We've launched invasions, created vast new bureaucracies, shredded the Bill of Rights, compounded regulations, spent hundreds of billions of dollars, and disrupted travel and commerce. But no one is suggesting that we do 200 times as much to address the driving risk, which is 200 times greater."

And:

"If Ernest Hemingway had the right definition of courage — “grace under pressure” — then our country has shown little grace in the face of not much pressure. To us, the official government “War on Terror” amounts to one giant national cringe."

And finally, they recommend you write your congressperson, with the following message:

“I am not afraid of terrorism, and I want you to stop being afraid on my behalf. Please start scaling back the official government war on terror. Please replace it with a smaller, more focused anti-terrorist police effort in keeping with the rule of law. Please stop overreacting. I understand that it will not be possible to stop all terrorist acts. I accept that. I am not afraid.”

The problem with the 'war on terror' is not that it hasn't had any successes; if you sow a million seeds, you must reap one potato. It's that it's changed the way we see ourselves and our relationship with the world, to no good effect on either. We are collectively and individually afraid, and our friends in the world see that we are afraid, and think less of us. These are people who have, by and large, wandered through a landscape studded with random terror for years (Italy and Germany both had good sized home-grown terrorist organizations. Yes, they had outside help, but most of the actual bombers, shooters, and supporters were Italian or German). They prosecuted a vigorous law enforcement effort against it, and by and large, they've won; there are now fewer terrorist events in Europe than there were when I was growing up there (although still not zero. If you think zero is attainable, I Cannot Help You).

Someone will always bring up the subject of Israel, and I'll allow that Israel is a special case; they are tiny, and surrounded by populous states which hate them, as well as having inherited a large internal enemy ditto. Fighting terrorism in their situation is likely to be a way of life forever, or at least until a more political solution to the problem of 'every group who wants that spot feels displaced' is solved. We are large, politically stable (there are no large internal groups which seriously desire that there be no United States), and surrounded by places which are, if not client states, significantly entangled with us both politically and economically; they can't afford to harbor our enemies as a matter of national policy, they'd go broke. So the Israel parallel is not as parallel as all of that; it's more of an orthogonal.

As a general rule, I really don't think you can ever 'stamp out terror'; it's a technique, and one which works against some adversaries. It's often the only technique which works for small organizations with little money. All the big dog has to do is keep his guard up, and keep biting; eventually you'll get hold of the terrorist in an important place, or you'll outlast their political complaint.