Is there such a thing as a "Global War on Terror"?

Terrorism is something that western societies have a very difficult time wrapping their head around. It is hard to understand how somebody could want to attack civilians whom they know nothing about in order to get something. To westerners these lives are all special and each one means something. This is especially clear in the response to the recent car bombing attack in Peshawar, Pakistan on October 28th. Even those in Pakistan (who see more and more western influence every day) cannot fathom that this was a terrorist attack. They suspect something else, anything else but that. Some are already trying to blame India or Israel. That however is not how terrorism works.

In order to get a grasp on terrorism you have to understand it's true motives. Terrorism is a formulaic expression of force designed to accomplish two things. First it lets the enemy know that you have no bounds and will strike whenever and wherever you choose. Secondly it forces the public support for your enemies into question. Terrorism will never win the culprit new supporters. That is very clear since no person would join the same side who just blew up their own family members. What it will accomplish though is a move towards timidness and a call for diplomacy even when diplomacy makes no sense. A couple examples of very successful terrorist attacks are the Madrid, Spain train attacks and the cross border kidnapping of an Israeli. In Spain the attacks were followed almost immediately with the takeover of a more moderate party in the government. This is exactly what the terrorist wanted and emboldens them the most. In Israel the kidnapping secured the diplomatic talks about release of prisoners in exchange for the soldier. This too shows the terrorist that terrorism works.

The most important part of the formula of terrorism is to do the deed and then take credit for it. Otherwise you create fear which has no direction and you accomplish nothing. Terrorists may take credit directly or indirectly by allowing the evidence to speak for itself. So what happened in Peshawar? Most likely members of the Taliban acted without orders but with a plan. They would strike where it hurt the people the most and in doing so try to usher in an end to the attacks on the Taliban in the south. Then most likely they realized their miscalculation after initial public response was so negative to the attack. That is before anybody took credit the people made it clear they didn't want to appease, they wanted justice.

Justice is the answer to terrorism in all circumstances. If you exact justice instead of appeasement in response to all terrorist attacks then you break the formula and remove the motivating factor. This means making tough decisions. This means making the most difficult of decisions in some cases and sacrificing one life for the lives of many. In the Madrid attacks the response should have been to locate and bring the terrorists to justice and to make an example of them. Spain does not have the intestinal fortitude for such action though and it shows. For Israel they need to learn that the cliche of "You never negotiate with terrorists" really holds true. Every time that Israel does a prisoner swap it dooms future generations to more terrorist attacks. If Israel would tell their attackers to go pound sand just once it would send a strong signal that terrorism will have the opposite effect here.

Just talking about going after the terrorists brings up bad feelings in many people's heads. They remember the ongoing battle in Iraq and Afghanistan and cannot swallow that as the solution. Here is the thing. It is not the solution. A drawn out ground war is rarely what is called for. Sometimes it is called for but that idea must be vetted completely and all other solutions ruled out. In addition in the United States one thing is clear. The President should never have the authority to start a ground war and then ask for congressional support later. It is supposed to happen the other way around. Congress declares war and only when we are in grave risk. Too many President's have cried wolf in the past and it makes it difficult to discern the times when we really do need to go to war.

Most of the time a more appropriate response is to first off never negotiate and never appease, and secondly to go after those responsible with a measured response. Whether that means a special ops mission, or a cruise missile carefully honed or an attack from a UAV it is becoming clear that these responses get us the most bang for the buck and send a clear message. If you attack this country you will not get appeasement and most likely you will end up dead. When every country in the world jumps on that bandwagon is when the "Global War on Terror" really starts and ends. Until then terrorists will still strike because who knows, they may get the appeasement they want.