A friend directed me to an excerpt found in the Nov./Dec. 2006 Pennsylvania Gazette, “Lowering the Temperature,” from Ian S. Lustick’s new book, Trapped in the War on Terror.  I found this to be a very realistic approach to terrorist activity,... one that encourages “confident resilience, not debilitating hysteria, and leaders acting out of courage and discipline rather than impulse and bravado.” 

In an interview, Gazette senior editor Samuel Hughes asked Dr. Ian Lustick:

Some people say we’ve abandoned protecting our infrastructure—the chemical plants and ports and whatnot. Is there a real threat to them, and should that be addressed better than it is now? Or is that part of the hysteria?

Dr. Lustick replied:

Consider this. For a Democratic candidate, the easiest thing in the world is to say what you just said, that instead of fighting the war in Iraq the government should be protecting refineries, ports, subways, cattle herds, the milk supply, skyscrapers, bridges, tunnels, and power plants. But if a wise policy is defined as that which protects every important thing in the country from any bad thing anyone might think of doing, then no policy can be wise and every official can be made to look foolish. My point is that to be drawn toward that tempting kind of argument is to be drawn into playing the War on Terror game and helping it to become even more in control of our lives than it already is.

We’ve got to turn away from a definition of the problem that gives every interest group the ability to invent the enemy and the dangers that it would profit from most if they existed. Instead we must concentrate our resources on the real enemies we have, and especially on making sure that nuclear-weapons grade materials do not get into the hands of the wrong people. That’s not done through warfare; that’s not done through loud, politically sexy campaigns. It’s done through discreet, professional intelligence and law enforcement, with surgical and mostly clandestine use of military force when necessary. It requires close and trusted cooperation with our allies in Europe and in the Muslim world. The kind of War on Terror rhetoric we’ve been pursuing is exactly what interrupts those important efforts and complicates them.

Since the election this past week, I’ve been reading about the pragmatic influence newly elected Democrats should bring to Washington and cities across America.  There is speculation on whether the Democrats have any good ideas on how to get out of Iraq without creating wider terrorism.

The question remains whether we’ll see a more rational approach in general to terrorism such as Dr. Lustick proposes or whether we’ll see more politicians playing into the War on Terror game set up by some of our current leaders.