Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

Which is worse, death by terrorism or death by military strikes? Is there a difference? And if there is, does that difference matter? Do you think the families of the victims of either methodology feel any less pain and suffering because of the capabilities of the killer?

Regardless of your answers to these questions, a secondary battle inevitably ensues following any act of international violence. It is a battle for public approval and its importance is undeniable both in times of peace and in times of war.

Yes, unfortunately war is sometimes necessary in the defense of your family and country. And regardless of the side you support or the tactics you employ, it is from that perspective that you and your leaders will rationalize your position to be the only one that is moral and just.

Most people would agree with the foundational premise that no killing is ever justifiable unless it is in defense. Thus, anyone who kills from a position of offense is guilty of crimes against humanity. From here, many question how the opposition could possibly find any moral justification for their incorrigible acts.

Of course each side views the situation from starkly different places. To illustrate the impact of such perspective differences, we can pose two questions:

Question 1: Would you ever resort to terrorist tactics to get your way?

Answer 1: Of course not!

Well that seemed simple enough. Didn't it? Now try this one...

Question 2: How about this. Suppose you were in a position where your country had virtually no military presence and you, in your perception, were being invaded, and occupied or otherwise attacked by another sovereignty. Would you be willing to resort to any means necessary to protect your family and your country?

Answer 2: Here, the answer is probably a little different, right? You better believe I would do anything to protect my family and my country and so would any other true American.

And then, after you were done protecting your family and country to the best of your ability, the opposition would demonize you as a 'terrorist' -- detestable and unfair given that these particular acts were in your defense, but that's the way it goes.

Even when offensive, the tactics of terrorism are no more despicable (unless they specifically target children) than any other act of warfare.

The bottom line is that, when not executed in the act of defense, killing is killing.

The events of 9-11 were acts of offense, disgusting and unconscionable. Iraqis using car bombs on coalition forces are acts of defense against an invading army -- sad, regrettable, and unsurprising. When you are attacked, you fight back in whatever way you can.

In fact, with its vast military power, it is always in the best interest of the West to demonize 'terrorist' acts (even if they are acting as 'freedom fighters' in their own perception) regardless of their motivations.

Western governments proudly announce that they would NEVER stoop to such disgraceful, underhanded tactics. Of course they wouldn't. Why would they sneak someone into a target strapped with ten pounds of plastique when they can lob half a dozen two-ton missiles from 300 miles away? Duh!

In the end, there are those who kill with vast military power and there are terrorists. Those with the vast military power also typically have vast wealth which they use to publicize the despicable nature of the terrorists, as though killing people with terrorist tactics is somehow worse than killing people with military might.

They divert attention from the cold factual reality of the past -- that hundreds of thousands more civilians have been killed with military might than through acts of terrorism... shall we deny Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

Military planners know this truth and, as a result, have come up with terms to minimize and dehumanize the impact of civilian casualties. That's right. They deem 'Collateral Damage' a necessary cost of war, implying that as long as it occurs with cruise missiles rather than pipe bombs, then it's a-okay.

It's not.

So does Cindy Sheehan think the Iraqi insurgents are 'Freedom Fighters' and does she favor them over our own troops?

Please. Her own son was one of those troops. She loves them and supports them to her dying days. That's why she wants to bring them home.

As for the insurgency, of course they perceive themselves as 'Freedom Fighters', and that is the objective point I believe Cindy was trying to make.

So, Would you be a 'Freedom Fighter' for America?

A final note: To those of you who will inevitably suggest that this analysis is somehow a defense of terrorism, or any other offensive killing tactic, I will only say that you couldn't possibly be more wrong. This analysis is about public perception and propaganda. To suggest anything further would be to project your own set of beliefs onto a situation, and that is a struggle you alone will have to endure.