Declaring a war on terror seems to be fashionable lately. Let's consider the 'who?', 'why?', and 'how?'
of such a war.
To win a war on terror, we can presume to set our goal as 'against terrorism'.
To eliminate or lessen acts of terror, we can attack on two fronts:
1. Eliminate or lessen the fears terrorism exploits.
2. Eliminate or lessen (regulate) the acts themselves.
For a successful attack on the first front, we can consider these courses of action:
1. Kill everyone.
2. Give everyone fearlessness pills.
3. Raise everyone's awareness.
Killing everyone seems as efficient and easy enough solution for ending fears terror, but since no war is an isolated incident, we presumably have other goals with higher priorities as well - such as the survival of humanity.
Eliminating fears through physical/chemical means would be the psychological equivalent of killing everyone - presumably not desired as well.
The third remaining solution is education of awareness, transparency, and personal integrity. Hard to implement exactly because it is hard to abuse, but it is the right weapon in the arsenal for this war.
For a successful attack on the second front, we can consider these courses of action:
1. Terrorize the hell out of potential terrorists (everyone).
The first course of action is a misplaced goal; not only is it inefficient, but it encourages a downward spiral away from our original goal.
Actively regulating on the external front until the war is won on the internal front seems like a sensible thing to do, but... who decides? It still feeds the terror-machine with more energy.
Withdrawing from the terror-aspect of action seems to be the most sensible thing to do; however, it has to go hand-in-hand with successful action on the first front.
So... what do you think?
How do you prefer a war on terror to be fought?