"Assuming Osama bin Laden is identified as the source of yesterday's terrorist attack, his motivation is beyond our Western sensibilities, i.e. rather than help he has done immense harm to his causes, race, and religion since at least a generation of Americans will look with suspicion and disfavor on all three."
On further reflection we realize this was misguided for two reasons.

First, saying the terrorists acts will cause a generation of Americans to look with suspicion and disfavor on Muslims and people from the Middle East is exactly what bin Laden seeks to accomplish. Bin Laden is motivated by hating other religions and races.  We will put ourselves on his level if we hate -- or discriminate -- on that basis too.

Second, saying targeting civilians shows a disdain of the value of human life that is foreign to "Western sensibilities" totally ignores Timothy McVeigh's terrible and effective terrorist attack in Oklahoma City that also targeted civilians.  And while McVeigh fled before his powerful bomb exploded, he went calmly to his death believing he was a true patriot -- and even dismissing the many children's deaths as unavoidable "collateral damage."

    We should also note that on a "death per terrorist" ratio, McVeigh beat 2 of the 4 hijackings, and remember that after the Oklahoma Bombing we didn't "declare war" on domestic terrorists... indeed several US groups' web pages continue to be filled with threats to lynch judges who don't agree with their view of the Second Amendment, and calls to horde guns and ammunition for "it" -- the eventual war on our own government.  And just as bin Laden appears to be motivated by some perverse interpretation of his religion, McVeigh was motivated by some perverse interpretation of what the Founding Fathers intended.

    The hijacking scenario will never work again for numerous reasons, i.e.: the past strategy of accommodating hijackers and coaxing them to get the plane on the ground -- where if negotiations failed, Delta Forces would come on the plane disguised as maintenance personnel -- has been abandoned; heightened security - including Sky Marshals; and even if an armed Marshal is not present, the passengers will overtake any number of hijackers; and finally military planes will be in the sky close to major cities ready to shoot down any threatening airliner.

    Continuing to push for an anti-ballistic missile system (Star Wars II) now seems very misguided for two reasons:

First, as this "21^st century war" so vividly demonstrates, intercontinental missiles are obsolete... that is, terrorists who are smart enough, and have the people and financial resources to make weapon "payloads" small enough to fit on the tip of a missile, and use exotic metals and fuels to build sophisticated propulsion systems, and use complicated computer and GPS technology to accurately find and hit their target over long distances... are smart enough to know that there are far cheaper and more reliable ways to deliver a weapon. Simply put, why undertake the time and expense of building missiles to deliver a weapon when there is no barrier to fly over?

And second, why upset Russia and other countries for an enormously expensive system that likely won't work well and certainly is obsolete?  Indeed, it's one thing to disagree with treaties and conferences -- but withdrawing without offering an alternative plan is childish... particularly now when we have so dramatically learned how dependent we are on other countries.

    And the "America First" policy that opposes anything that might interfere with every American's "right" to drive a Lincoln Navigator sized vehicle also seems stupid, i.e. it is not only wasteful (since oil is neither renewable or unlimited, each excess gallon we use is a gallon our children and grandchildren can't use) and contributes to the arrogant, "spoiled rich kid" perception many people in the world hold of Americans, but also because our foreign policy has to focus on protecting our sources of imported oil.  (Would we really be that concerned about Saudi Arabia if it didn't have enormous oil reserves?)

An often overlooked quote clearly shows the Founding Fathers knew foreign opinion mattered:

“Attention to the judgment of other nations is important to every government for two reasons: the one is, that, independently of the merits of any particular plan or measure, it is desirable, on various accounts, that it should appear to other nations as the offspring of a wise and honorable policy; the second is, that in doubtful cases, particularly where the national councils may be warped by some strong passion or momentary interests, the presumed or known opinion of the impartial world may be the best guide that can be followed."   Federalist No. 63, Alexander Hamilton or James Madison

---

Page prepared 9/18/01
Original material only copyright 2001; other material copyright by holders;
see the Elect Hobie Homepage; Non-Commercial Distribution encouraged with attribution.