- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I've read through these comments and I'm not sure I understand something: Are people saying that military action and extreme but temporary domestic security measures are NEVER appropriate in response to terrorism? If so, count me out. After 9/11, our Afghan incursion was, in my view, entirely appropriate and justifiable. Many of the intitial domestic security steps were also warranted. The mistakes came afterwards. With Iraq. With interminable illegal spying. The torture. The renditions. Etc, etc., etc.
Clearly, a nation has the right to self-defense. Indeed, that is an obligation. What India should do militarily in response to the Mombai attacks, if anything, is simply not clear at this point. Certainly, a knee-jerk lashing out will just inflame the situation and be counterproductive. That is likely what the terrorists want to see. But there is a time and a place for military action and militaristic measures. It's just that, ultimately, the Islamic extremists will be defeated not primarily by force, but by dissuading those attracted to terrorism, by collective and cooperative opposition. Just what Bush did NOT do.
