War, Or Something Like It.

I wonder if all peoples who consider themselves civilized could agree that war is stupid, horrible and to be avoided as it is? Even wars declared by nations, and conducted according to the conventions of war as agreed by the global community of nations - even such war as that is terrible, horrific, disgusting. War is bad enough.

But when someone steps forth to sanction "war" not declared by a nation or against a nation but rather, "war" declared by individuals or groups of activists - I confess I despair. I waver. I begin to consider giving up all my ideals, rather than live in a world where that can be made true.

It can be made true, if we allow war to be redefined in this way: it will be true. Such support, if carried, will make it true.

As a last ditch effort, I feel I'd have to advocate (or at least, sanction) a tyranny. To prevent that worst coming true. Said tyranny should keep every other single one of our rights in place! Including all right to criticize the governments of nations, including one's own. This tyranny would be very focused, targeted: an Amendment would be passed, making it overtly legal for the government to abduct, try, and murder the irresponsible scumbag who supports and justifies terrorism.

Terrorism, put plainly, is to kill a bystander/secondary target in order to make a statement to the primary target. That statement is designed to sow fear in the enemy's populace, and to destabilize the enemy's power structure.

Terrorism's justification could be stated thus:

"A personal act of war is an appropriate response for whatever injustice offends us."

Support for terrorism would be anyone claiming the above.

Under my proposal, people offering such support and justification to terrorism would be eligible for government abduction, prosecution, and public murder. I won't dignify the acts of a tyranny with niceties like "execution." Still it's a small price to pay, to kill those who openly support and offer justification to terrorism. Leave all the rest of free speech in place, just make that one exemption - better that than giving up on the whole thing, right? Because if such justification is countenanced, if such support is carried, is made generally accepted, then an act of personal, political war becomes appropriate response to whatever you like. Whatever you hate.

We can't survive that.

War is bad enough when we restrict it to declaration by nation against nation, and expect that it shall be conducted according to convention - or else violations of convention may be subject to prosecution under legally-convened war crimes tribunals. Even such "civilized" war is horrific. The world can't survive us extending the envelope of war to personal (non-officially-publicly-state-sanctioned) political vendettas.

Mind you, it would be a terrible state of affairs, a tyranny such as the one I propose. It would mean scumbags who justify that maybe terrorists have a good point would have to fear for their lives, if investigators could track them down and tie them to their words (and of course, if their statements could be proven to have been made after the Amendment when through - no retroactive application of penalties to what was then not a crime!). Even with clear limitations laid out, I fear the slippery slope that could take further liberties from us. That slope leads to a nasty cliff.

But at least we'd have the chance of climbing back from it. The slippery slope of allowing private moral justifications as equivalent to war leads to an abyss. There is no bottom, no climbing back.