The Terror Question
By Gordon Hopkins
I find myself in something of a quandary. I write for both the news pages and the editorial pages in this newspaper. I try not to address matters I may have to report on in my column. I do give myself some latitude with certain subjects, as anyone who has read my rantings on AI (Artificial Intelligence) knows. Even then, I try to address those matters in an oblique way in my column, so as not to damage my credibility when reporting serious news stories.
Now is different. Now, we are at war. I am a writer at a time of war. How can I NOT write about the war.
Obviously, I can’t. But let me be clear, I am neither condoning nor condemning what my country is doing in the Middle East right now. I simply wish to raise a question that I’m not sure has been adequately answered yet.
Recently, I came across a post on social media that described U.S. military action against Iran as “unprovoked.” In response, a somewhat outraged individual posted, “Unprovoked? They’ve been funding terror to destroy Israel and the US for decades.”
This is an interesting point that suggests both a justification for, and refutation of, the war in Iran at the same time.
On the one hand, state-sponsored terrorism certainly seems like a legitimate reason for war. On the other hand, if it has, indeed, been going on for decades, why now? Multiple reasons have been offered to support the war with Iran and terrorism is only one. Still, this person specifically offered terrorism as a reason, so that is what I would like to examine now.
The big question is, will the war actually stop the terrorism of which Iran has been accused?
History suggests not. While terrorism was cited as a motivating factor (as with Iran, it was one of many), the invasion of Iraq in 2003 actually led to an increase in terrorism. Of course, much of that was focused on the occupying forces in Iraq. In a press conference in 2006, President George W. Bush explained why U.S. forces were still in Iraq, despite having toppled Saddam Hussein’s regime three years earlier, “We leave before the mission is done, the terrorists will follow us here.”
U.S. Senator Pete Ricketts said the primary mission of U.S. forces is to “degrade” (a euphemism for bomb to smithereens) Iran’s missiles and military so they are no longer a threat. Of course, the real problem with that approach is, if you destroy a country’s military, terrorism is all they have left to fight with.
Is war the way to stem the tide of terrorism? Or, is taking on terrorism with intelligence/investigation/neutralization, targeting specific bad actors a more effective approach?
Of course, like most Americans, the question I would really like answered is, when will it all be over?
