Tyrants monopolize power and a good rule of thumb Americans are familiar with is, “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Corruption is the bane of civil society because corrupt actors are difficult to track and prosecute. Corrupt actors use familiar institutions against the public and this can be done even more effectively if such corruption is carried out under the guise of national or international sovereignty. [Recall oil for food]. Terrorism, like corruption is made more difficult to accomplish without the sponsorship of states.
You mentioned deterring non-state actors cannot be done. I disagree; it certainly can be done, both directly and indirectly. The act of deterring non-state actors is made easier by relieving non-state actors of their official state sponsors. Regardless, you’ll probably agree that there are unpleasant symptoms of deterring non-state actors, IE terrorists.
Symptom of deterring terrorism may include but are not limited to, inciting retaliatory terrorist violence, public sympathy for terrorists and the creation of new and more deadly terrorist tactics. Some look at these symptoms and say, “deterrence is worse than living with the disease”; while others ask, “can terrorism be cured in its entirety?”
In my opinion the answer to both is an unequivocal, NO! Terrorism is a disease that must be deterred by Americans while they simultaneously acknowledge that terrorism, as it is currently defined, cannot be cured. Look around… violence is a political tool! It always has been and I cannot imagine a world in which “fear of bodily harm” does not influence the public sphere to act politically.
The lessons of history make another point clear about political violence. As society has become more civil, the price for using violence to meet political and economic goals has gone up. This is particularly true for developed states, like the United States. The American Government, a government for the people --- by the people, is paying a massive toll in blood, treasure and reputation for resorting to violence to achieve regional peace and stability in the Middle East. In my opinion --- It is worth every drop, dime and slur!
Why? With our blood, treasure and reputation we are buying the future. It will be a future that you, I and the entire world can live with. Would we get there faster if we did it the way this author prescribes? I doubt it…
Eloquent! Powerful!
No doubt terrorism can be made more difficult to accomplish without state sponsorship. My point is that terrorism can also flourish without state sponsorship and that the removal of dictators and the installation of democracy is not a one-size-fits-all solution to the problem of terrorism. As you must know, the US has supported dictators in troubled regions when foreign policy required it in the past - for reasons of political stability. Similarly, we have encouraged and assisted the removal of democratically elected leaders when their policies threatened our interests.
I see no reason to believe that democracy and democracy alone represents a solution to the problem of terrorism, as the election of Hamas clearly demonstrates. Were democracy to magically appear overnight throughout the Middle East and Pakistan, for example, we would soon find ourselves dealing with hostile Islamist regimes with popular mandates. Terrorism would not be stopped.