I am not jingoistic, but this is also not an anti-government web site (neither do we want to engage in conspiracy theories here – we’ll leave that to the tabloids and the Daily KOS). I will hold persons accountable to the extent that I am capable, and the relationship you wish to discuss (Iraq / Afghanistan / GWOT), although being unrelated to the subject of the post, is the subject of hundreds of past articles, and perhaps will be the subject of future articles.

The main point about corporate interests and “much ado” (although I never said “about nothing”) is that our government has little interest in stopping the actual terrorists. Working backwards:

Our original stated reason (i.e. propaganda device) for invading Iraq was to eliminate the potential for Iraqi WMD to end up in terrorists’ hands, a very indirect way of attacking terrorism and one that could be applied to much of the developing world. In any case, this goal was totally discounted once it became untenable and we switched to a new goal of democratization of Iraq and the broader Mid-east region. Ultimately, Iraq had little to do with counter-terrorism.

Our original reason for invading Afghanistan was apparently to oust a government that was abetting a terrorist organization. This cassus belli didn’t even make it to D-day, however, because the Taliban offered to hand over UBL and we refused, favoring invasion to negotiation. AQ was ultimately forced to fight us face to face, but got away and has been allowed to rebuild ever since. Again, at best a setback for global terrorism.

Thus we in the US, the target of an awful attack likely committed by a certain terrorist organization, went on to let that organization go and attack two nations instead, all in the name of fighting a “War on Terror”.

I think it’s important to make a sharp distinction between our government’s stated motives (definitionally “propaganda”, but I’ll agree to call it “public service information” if you think that’s more fair) and its apparent actual motives. Propaganda must play to what you and I believe, otherwise we might try to replace our current leaders, but it is often a poor reflection of what other people around the world see clearly happening.*

Thus, when you say “there is moral distinction between us and the terrorists because of our belief system”, it’s easy for me to understand according to what I instinctively believe, and it lines up with what our government is saying. But when I look at our government’s actions, it’s hard not to get the impression I’m being sold a bill of goods. For example:

1. The quashing of the democratic Palestinian election, support for the illegal blockade of Gaza, allowing the state founded on the backs of those who suffered in German death camps to run one of its own.

2. Supporting Israel’s 2006 attack on Lebanon, again leaving a terrorist group intact while destroying a country.

3. The 2006 cross-border rocket attack on Pakistan, originally targeting Zawahiri, which killed 18 innocents, mostly women and children.

4. The missile attack on Sudan in the wake of the African embassy bombings, targeting- on verifiably flimsy evidence (as with Iraq)- a “chemical weapons factory”, resulting in the decimation of the Sudanese pharmaceutical industry and the deaths one would expect subsequent to that, if not contributing significantly to the current state of affairs in that country.

These are just some of the more obvious incidents from recent history in which we have chosen to “live by the sword”. It should be noted that our government feels no need to respond to such charges, I believe because it thinks it can get away with them since the majority of voters don’t have the resources to make them an issue.

Your basic premise of moral inequality might hold up for John Q. Citizen vs. UBL, but apparently works in reverse for UBL vs. US- i.e. the US seems worse. We have no moral footing to say we “deserve” to have justice done upon Badawi, at least not unless we accept that justice ought to be done upon the perpetrators in our own government and we be made to bear the costs of the damages we have inflicted upon others. This justice would rightly be orders of magnitude greater than that our foes deserve, in accordance with the harm done. This is in fact the opposite of moral relativism in that it insists the same standards apply to our enemy as apply to us.

* You seem knowledgeable about strategy: you might recall that Sun Tzu wrote: “The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.” This “accord” is the goal of propaganda. The government that doesn’t heed this maxim soon looses the “mandate of heaven”, i.e. the support of the people.

I’m not sure how to respond to your issue with “corporate America.” It doesn’t seem to me to have much to do with the subject of the article and it appears to lack context. I have no idea what you are talking about.

As far as using “terrorist tactics to fight terror,” how do you wish this to be done? If the terrorist will not confine his tactics to the field of battle, then we must meet him where he is. As to the issue of becoming like them – which I’m sure is next to come up – you really must disabuse yourself from the relativistic ethics that seems to be the axiomatic basis for your positions. We will never be like the terrorist because he is a terrorist and we are not. This is not a subjective judgment, there are objective means with which this can be judged. We do not intentionally kill innocents, he does. We didn’t declare war, they did. We do not wish for Christianity, or the U.S., or any other cause for that matter, to forcibly take over the entire world. They do (regarding militant, radical Islam), and have said so repeatedly. We do not wish for war, they do. We do not consider them the “great Satan,” but they do us. We have not vowed their end, but they have us. You get the picture – this could go on for quite a while.

So as to the issue of sniping and killing before any U.S. Soldier or Marine is killed, see my posts on rules of engagement. I do not support the notion of announcing your presence first so as to allow surrender (since this puts U.S. forces in greater jeopardy). I do not support the idea that the enemy must have a weapon and be actively engaged in combat in order to be targeted. This is a preposterous position, one I have argued against. To take a position like this means the end of snipers as an offensive tactic, which is yet another article I have published.

For an argument for killing the enemy before you are killed, see:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_10_28-2007_11_03.shtml#1193762167

As to this being a single terrorist and much ado about nothing, it is more than a single terrorist. Think outside the box, Ben. This is exemplary. How we enagage this instance is a pointer to how we will engage all such instances.

Finally, there is moral distinction between us and the terrorists because of our belief system, not because of our refusal to kill the enemy if he isn’t holding a gun.

“… but in the end, we must be prepared to be alone in the pursuit of our own national security interests.”

You’re quite right to specify which national interists are meant, as simply mentioning the “national interest” is really just a euphamism for corporate interests*, those who largely bankroll our political system and determine its course. I agree with your statement though. Unfortunately, it looks like that’s exactly what we’re not doing, namely in that AQ is known to reside in Pakistan, and yet almost our entire focus is on Iraq and Afghanistan.

“So will there be a well-aimed sniper round targeted at Badawi, or a neatly devised car bomb set to detonate at exactly the right time?”

This would be using terrorist tactics to fight terror. The idea that our country might do this removes the possibility of moral distinction between us and the terrorists. It makes us out to be a very large pack of terrorists, a failed state and a menace on the world scene. These words, I know, are heated; but sadly they are based on solid moral thinking, i.e. what applies to someone else applies equally to us. It is not for a president to preach morals to us, but vice versa.

* It occurs to me that Christians concerned with the pervasive negative elements in our culture (e.g. the use of sex and violence as selling poits) might disapprove of corporations who contribute to it in the persuit of profit. I feel the same way except with regard to politics.

PS I’m new here, and I’ve tried to make these arguments as impersonal as possible. I think what you’ve written is quite measured and conservative in the points it raises; I only fear that some of the baseline beliefs many in this country hold do not stand up to logical questioning.

As I noted last week, it had been reported that Jamal al-Badawi, had been released from prison in Aden, Yemen. Badawi is a suspect in the USS Cole Bombing, an al-Qaeda terrorist attack on our country. The State Department now says that Badawi is now in…