Arnold Kling has an intelligent piece on how we should identify terrorists in the "war on terrorism." Kling is correct that the terrorist defies normal categorizations: he is not a soldier but also he is clearly a combatant. Kling suggests labeling them spies and labeling those who collaborate with terrorists as traitors. I am not sure if I agree with the latter, but the former seems wise to me. I would point out that in the canons of just war theory the spy has virtually no rights because he hides among the civilian population. The soldier gets rights because he fights for a sovereign and he clearly identifies himself as a combatant. The terrorist fights for a private cause and seeks to blur the line between combatant and non-combatant. That's why international conventions demand soldiers where identifying markers; it helps protect the civilian population from being confused with armed combatants.
Newt Gingrich also has a surprisingly insightful piece on terrorism in the Wall Street Journal. I don't endorse everything he says, but he provides some useful historical context and gives some reasonable suggestions for improving the prosecution of the war against terrorism. This article illustrates the virtues and vices of Gingrich. He is clearly smart and intellectually curious. He has a lively mind that is fun to watch at play. He also has the vices of the intellectual. Gingrich is a bit too enamored with the management mentality. He tends to believe that if you just put smart people in place and allow them to tinker with policy problems the way your mechanic tinkers with your car, then all our problems will go away. He is also prone to intellectual fad-ism. Reading the WSJ piece makes it clear that Gingrich has recently read a management book that is big on "metrics." Memo to Newt: The world is complex. It defies formulaic solutions found in Peter Drucker books. If Gingrich had half as much common sense as he does basic intelligence, he'd still be Speaker of the House and maybe president. As it is, Gingrich's lack of power shows why intelligence is often overrated in politics.
Recent Comments