Long and Winding War on Terror
Past attempts to win the War on Terror do not bode well for the current one.
The British have had several failures. One of the most prominent sort of set the tone for British defeats in the War on Terror over the past two centuries plus was their loss in the American colonies in the 18th century. They really blew that one. Maybe they needed a Patriot Act.
The British went on to lose the War on Terror in places like India and Pakistan (the conquest over terror in India was particularly long and difficult and ultimately lost), Burma, Palestine and Israel (where Menachem Begin, a former terrorist, would lead the rise to power of Likud), Cyprus, Iraq, Ghana, Kenya, Afghanistan (where the British lost several battles with terrorists but continue to hope to bring this territory back into the civilized world, perhaps now with the help of the new supreme terror fighter and former home of anti-British terrorists) and many other political/geographic spaces within which British sovereignty had been established and then undermined/destroyed by terrorist movements. The British have a good deal of experience to share with their erstwhile allies in the War on Terror, early 21st century edition.
Ironically, the Britons had themselves been terrorists during the Roman attempt to expand the civilized world. The Romans had fought against one of history's most legendary terrorist leaders, Boedica, and eventually won this war on terror. One of the oldest Wars on Terror was the Roman struggle against the Christians, who were particularly pesky terrorists, said to have hid out underground and even burned a few buildings down in an effort to destroy or, at the least, undermine the nation. The Romans were also appalled that many of these terrorists wanted to be martyrs, seemed to seek out self-destruction. It was difficult to fight an opponent who did not fear death. Nevertheless, as might be expected, the patriotic Roman population rallied behind their government and the heroic troops and government agents who fought to defeat, round up, and punish the terrorists (Emperor bashers and appeasers were relatively few). Nevertheless, in the end the Romans failed and the Roman Empire is no more.
Perhaps we can learn from these past Wars on Terror. Was the problem that the national governments that fought those wars were too liberal, too wimpy, too prone to protecting civil liberties, or just too reticent to apply torture to get better intelligence in the fight against the terrorists who would, and in many cases successfully did, undermine society?
The British have had several failures. One of the most prominent sort of set the tone for British defeats in the War on Terror over the past two centuries plus was their loss in the American colonies in the 18th century. They really blew that one. Maybe they needed a Patriot Act.
The British went on to lose the War on Terror in places like India and Pakistan (the conquest over terror in India was particularly long and difficult and ultimately lost), Burma, Palestine and Israel (where Menachem Begin, a former terrorist, would lead the rise to power of Likud), Cyprus, Iraq, Ghana, Kenya, Afghanistan (where the British lost several battles with terrorists but continue to hope to bring this territory back into the civilized world, perhaps now with the help of the new supreme terror fighter and former home of anti-British terrorists) and many other political/geographic spaces within which British sovereignty had been established and then undermined/destroyed by terrorist movements. The British have a good deal of experience to share with their erstwhile allies in the War on Terror, early 21st century edition.
Ironically, the Britons had themselves been terrorists during the Roman attempt to expand the civilized world. The Romans had fought against one of history's most legendary terrorist leaders, Boedica, and eventually won this war on terror. One of the oldest Wars on Terror was the Roman struggle against the Christians, who were particularly pesky terrorists, said to have hid out underground and even burned a few buildings down in an effort to destroy or, at the least, undermine the nation. The Romans were also appalled that many of these terrorists wanted to be martyrs, seemed to seek out self-destruction. It was difficult to fight an opponent who did not fear death. Nevertheless, as might be expected, the patriotic Roman population rallied behind their government and the heroic troops and government agents who fought to defeat, round up, and punish the terrorists (Emperor bashers and appeasers were relatively few). Nevertheless, in the end the Romans failed and the Roman Empire is no more.
Perhaps we can learn from these past Wars on Terror. Was the problem that the national governments that fought those wars were too liberal, too wimpy, too prone to protecting civil liberties, or just too reticent to apply torture to get better intelligence in the fight against the terrorists who would, and in many cases successfully did, undermine society?
posted by Satya | 2:20 PM
<< Home