There has been a lot of calls for the eradication of the martial technique known as terrorism recently. Terrorism has always been with us. Roman legions were let loose on civilian camps who defied them in order to spread fear and terror amongst the restless peasantry. Crusaders used catapults to launch the severed heads of the dead over the walls of Jerusalem. Ninja hunted the powerful by night and spread fear and paranoia amongst the upper crust of the Shogunate. Anti-abortionists used explosives and assassinations to spread fear amongst women and doctors. Jewish freedom fighters exploded bombs outside western hotels. Islamic fighters did likewise, coopting the bus and the child into their repertoire.
Is it possible for 40,000 years of human existence to be eradicated? Terrorism has always been the weapon of both the weak and the strong. Both have often had a need for tactics which through their very terribleness inspire fear and despair amongst the hated foe. Is it possible for a nation whose stated military strategy relies on "shock and awe" to persuade others whose strategy is "surprise and fear" to stop their attacks?
Let's take a moment to consider the logistics of such an attempt. Many have argued that it is possible to end terrorism by removing safe havens. Let's say we have a hypothetical army, which we use to demolish a safe haven in a jungle region. Theoretically that will end the terror threat from that location. Why then is it so common for those who lost their homes and livelihoods to turn to terrorism? Perhaps they too must be eliminated. It becomes obvious that in order to prevent those were once innocent from turning to terrorism for revenge we must make sure that they too are destroyed. So we exterminate the entire population of that village - men, women, children - everything. We can now be completely certain that no terrorist threat will come from that village. Sowing salt into the ground and poisoning any surrounding foliage will prevent the resurgence of that village as a potential terror hotspot, so that too becomes necessary.
What then happens if a nearby village becomes afraid for itself, and moves to guerilla warfare and terror tactics in order to try and resist the encroaching good guys? Well, of course the only option is to remove the safe haven - destroy the village, exterminate the villagers and poison the surrounding foliage.
But then we face another problem. With two villages of men, women and children utterly destroyed, other areas that were previously pacified have begun to regard the forces of good as a clear danger to their very existence. They stage a rebellion against law and good, envious of our nobility and fearful of our attacks on the agents of terror. When the rockets start hitting our buildings, we are faced once again with the existence of terrorism. And as before there is but one response - total annihilation. This time there must be no patience, no kindness in merely killing a single village. It has become clear that wherever terrorism grows, it spreads to nearby areas too quickly to react. So we must become proactive. We have no choice but to destroy everywhere that we do not know to be completely loyal.
When the flames wink out and the dust settles we will stand in a world free from terrorism. A world free from those who might attack us like cowards, striking at our weakness. A world free from other humans. We will stand alone.
The price, although high, is surely worth it. For what value can we put on a world without terrorism? A world where our children can grow up in peace, free from the horrors of suicide bombers and rebels. Surely that is worth the lives of 5 3/4 billion people. After all we shall live in a world without terrorists. Won't we?