| IF IT’S COMMUNICABLE QUARANTINE IT
(The alternative approach to terrorism) |
| Maybe it is time to look for a better way to combat terrorism than the use of force. Let us consider the use of quarantine. We can no longer assume that, sooner or later, the Arab countries harboring the base groups that spawn these terrorists can be trusted to help bring them to justice.
So we have only three possible solutions. The most obvious answer is to make war on the counties that harbor terrorism but this doesn’t seem to work out, as we have seen in Iraq. We have lost more troops after the war than during it, and we are no closer to our goal of a democracy than we were before the war. And, when we leave, there is no reason to think that the country will not return to a dictatorship, or a fanatical religious government just as willing to support terrorism than not. We are not yet willing to bring ourselves to use the same solution on the Arab countries as we did on the American Indian, and in my opinion it is not necessary to go to such lengths. Let us consider terrorism as if it was a communicable disease and quarantine it wherever it is being incubated. Let us use Iraq as a possible example of quarantine instead of invasion. Quarantine would consist of a few simple rules. First would be "No citizen of the quarantined country would be allowed to travel outside of his or her country, with the exception of representatives to the UN”. Second, "No form of transportation originating within the country of quarantine will be allowed to conduct commerce outside of that country." In other words, the UN would control all in coming and all outgoing shipments. Third, "Only food and durable nonmilitary goods maybe imported, or exported to a quarantine country”. This will assure that the people of the quarantined country will survive, and, if they so choose, reform and cooperate so that the quarantine can be lifted. The next best thing would be to restrict the travel of citizens of any country suspected of harboring terrorists. What if we would have used even this most mild of quarantining technique on Iraq? Let us say we simply banned the travel of Iraqi’s rather than invaded their county? Would that have stopped terrorism? No, but it would have stopped Iraqis from being terrorists. Would it have stopped the military build up of the Iraqi army? No, but if Iraq would have aggressed with their armies in any way, except in the direction of another nation that harbors terrorists, then we bomb the hell out of them. But no invasion, just decimation of the important industrial or military complex, with absolutely no rebuilding of the offending country. This technique would keep the offending country forever rebuilding their internal complex, with no loss of US or UN troops. But, above all, you must force all citizens of the quarantined country to be repatriated. This is the only way to achieve reform inside the offending country. This may sound cruel but how else do you get the message of resolve to people who seem to think they can passably harbor terrorists? As I see it we have three choices; we can put up with the terrorism, or we can contain those who look the other way while their country is used as a base, or we can eliminate the offending people or country. In my opinion we cannot put up with terrorism, nor can we return to the Wild West days and eliminate the Arab culture all together, as we did the American Indian. So that only leaves isolation. In this day and age of global economics and global allocation of raw materials we no longer can tolerate terrorism. And what I am afraid of most is that, as in the past, governments will choose extermination as the path of least resistance, and when you think about that the alternative of quarantine doesn’t seem so barbaric. |