what is the fundamental difference in all of this?

[fansince62]

pro-peace folks act after the fact.

pro-security folks act before the fact.

where does the greatest risk fall?

[gbear]

That's a good question, but is there an answer? Both have some pretty serious risks. On this board and here in the post 9-11 US, the gut reaction is to be proactive. However, doesn't this still run the risk of being wrong and subsequent provocation getting us into more messes rather than waiting and dealing with things as they come up?

I honestly don't know the answer. I tend to think you act on the evidence you've got and you make your best guess based on that while acknowledging the risk of being wrong and perhaps tempering responses based on the assessment of the trustworthyness of the information we've got (I'd hate to diagram this horrible sentence).

Yes, I'm aware that's a chicken answer that dodges your question. Before 9-11, I think most of us would have said keep on doing what we're doing. Now, the potential costs of that approach are evident. I'm just not sure we should take that to mean there is no cost with the other approach. IF nothing else, it definitely hurts our public image abroad if we are ever wrong. Let's keep in mind, we have stopped horrendous things from happening using a more reactive approach too (Cuban missile crisis? might be an example though I don't know enough about it).

[redman]

There's another problem with acting proactively. No one has the benefit of hindsight with which to weigh the magnitude of the danger you averted with your actions. Your opponents therefore can always point to doubt regarding the future as a reason for not acting now.

For example, if we remove Saddam and his regime, destroy the WMD's programs, and cut off ties between those progams and terrorists, we will never know that we saved the lives of tens of thousands of New Yorkers in Times Square on New Years Eve, 2004. Even if we captured the people involved in the plot and they cop to it, it's still very hypothetical, much like the guy arrested trying to drive into Washington State in December 1999 as part of the plot to blow up airliners at Los Angeles International Airport during the millenium celebration.

Was there public outrage or even much relief because of that arrest? Heck, even our national security apparatus didn't get their heads out of their respective kiesters enough to share information only 20 months later sufficiently to figure out in advance of 9/11 that terrorists were training on our soil to kill as many Americans as they could!

What all of this means is that you can do such a good job of being proactive, that the voting public gets lulled into a false sense of security such that they totally miss your successes there, and vote you out of office because of a bad economy, for example. I hope this reassures his doubters that Bush is not a poll-based President.

[fansince62]

nice, honest answer gbear.......we're going to find out I imagine what the risks are when one is proactive.....

I do listen to opposing views. and have taken to heart the idea that we better be careful lest this explode on us. the problem is that this argument strikes me as debating delta values for acceptable levels of terrorism rather than eliminating it.

[redman]

Originally posted by fansince62

I do listen to opposing views. and have taken to heart the idea that we better be careful lest this explode on us. the problem is that this argument strikes me as debating delta values for acceptable levels of terrorism rather than eliminating it.

Bingo.

And I'll go a step farther- the reason why some of the people who take this position argue as they do because they're simply against war per se, or are so totally against the Bush Administration that they'll oppose/obstruct anything the Administration supports, more than they truly have a postion regarding those delta values.

[gbear]

If nothing else, it should be interesting. I'm not sure there has ever been a nation in the world with the resourses we have at our disposal really go after terrorism.

Has there ever been a time of no terrorism? To my mind, that would require atleast 2 things happening. We'd need to make sure terrorism doesn't accomplish it's goals. The second precondition is that when it does succeed in accomplishing it's goals (sometimes unavoidable) it must be made to cost soooo much that nobody wants to go that route again or be associated with it.

The first is a very good reason for the no bargaining with hostage takers. That just makes the next guy take hostages.

The second is why the US goes after Afganistan for protecting Al Queda. To my mind, it's why even a tenuous link between Al Quaeda and Iraq makes it more necessary to go to war. In order to accomplish precondition #2, we have to make even being slightly associated with a terrorist who hurts us or our interests seem like it's risking the end of a nation.

The only problem I have with this approach is saying our lives are worth more than anybody elses. I recognize it's a dog eat dog world, but I can't help but be saddened that innocents in Iraq or elsewhere will die to keep us safe here. I'm not saying I wouldn't chose to live, but morally I wonder about killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians to prevent a possible terrorist strike that kills thousands of us. I'm not saying that's the ratio. I'm also not saying the ratio matters if it's one to one vs. ten to one. I just wonder if there is a point where morally we say the cost not to us is too much to justify reducing terroism against us to nil as apposed to historical levels. I don't have an answer to that. I think it's a fine line we'll have to walk as we continue our war on terrorism.

As a side note, we as a nation have in the past decided the loss of some of our people was worth what we could do to save lives elsewhere. Everytime we are peacekeeping troops, we put the lives of others above ours. Maybe it's just me, but that's laudable. No, I'm not advocating a totally rective regime. I do think it's a fair arguement for some situations. I would say however, that inorder for a reactive approach to work, it still requires reaction not pacifism. A reactive system at its best ends up being like our legal system. The problem is that in this day and age waiting for the crime can be a critical mistake.

As a second side note, I'm nto sure how passive we have been in the past. I can't believe nobody ever tried to seriously cripple us until 9-11. I suspect we've stopped some attempts before. Redman mentioned one example. I guess it all comes down to on which side you chose to err.