TOS Blog: Daily Commentary from an Objectivist Perspective

How to Solve America’s Terrorism Problem in 5 Easy Steps

Here is how America could solve her terrorism problem in 5 easy steps:

  1. Stop sacrificing American soldiers to bring “freedom” to savages in Iraq. Pull our soldiers out of that hellhole, and let the savages have their civil war. (Iraq is not and never was the main source of terrorism against America. Iran and Saudi Arabia are.)
  2. Declare war on Iran.
  3. Obliterate, from high altitude and long distance, all known Iranian military assets, all Iranian government buildings, all Iranian mosques and madrassahs, and the residences of all Iranian leaders, imams, clerics, and government officials. Hit these targets when they are most likely to be occupied (e.g., mosques during the day and residences at night). Do not send soldiers in on foot, except as necessary to identify targets or gather intelligence. We do not need to send soldiers in on foot to fight, and it would be immoral to do so. We have many big missiles, fast planes, and good bombs, and we should use these liberally while building bigger, faster, and better ones. (As to innocent non-Americans, such as Iranian children, who would be killed in such a campaign, they are not properly the concern of our government. Nor would their deaths be the fault of our government. Such deaths are always the fault of the force-initiating regime—and of those who in any way support or enable it—whose actions necessitate such retaliatory measures.)
  4. Airdrop leaflets across the Middle East explaining: “From now on, this is how America will respond to any and all threats to her citizens or allies. We look forward to the time when you decide to civilize yourselves, stop taking religion seriously, renounce the initiation of physical force, recognize the principle of individual rights, establish rule of law, and join the free world. Until then, we will be watching you from way up in the sky—higher even than Allah, by means of technology He cannot fathom—and if we see anything that we so much as feel might conceivably pose even a remote threat either to America or to our allies, we will annihilate it and everything in its proximity without further warning.”
  5. Notify the regime in Saudi Arabia that it got lucky and has the option of not being obliterated; that we are prepared instead to seize “its” oil fields and sell them to private industry, in part to pay for the campaign against Iran, and in part to return the fields to private industry where they belong; that it has 24 hours to turn the fields over to our agents; and that if it fails to comply or ignites the fields or does anything to thwart our program, its leaders, like those of Iran, will meet Allah sooner than later.

If we took these (or similar) measures, our terrorism problem would be solved. Sure, there would still be a few isolated instances of terrorism here and there in months and years to come; this much is inevitable given how long we have permitted the Islamists to plan and plot and establish cells. But, so long as we follow through as indicated above and immediately destroy anything that we think looks even remotely threatening, state sponsorship of terrorism against America would be over; the major threat to our lives would be gone.

Of course, we will not take such measures any time soon. Altruism will not let us. We will not take such measures until there is widespread understanding of the moral rightness of doing so—that is, until a substantial number of Americans understand that self-interest is moral and self-sacrifice is evil—and we are a long way from that. But such measures are morally correct—they are what we should do—and everyone who understands that they are should say so loudly and clearly. By placing such actions on the table for discussion, we create an opportunity to explain why they are morally correct—and that is what Americans (and westerners in general) most desperately need to learn.

Related Articles:

Related Posts:


Posted in: Foreign Policy and War, Philosophy

Comments are welcome so long as they are civil.
  • Anonymous

    This should be implemented today!

  • Steven Moros

    It takes honesty to acknowledge that the present approach to terrorism is ineffective. It just goes to show how honest most politicians are on the issue.

  • Anonymous

    haha yeah, spread more violence into the hearts and cultures of those in the middle east. unless you eliminate their population as a whole (which i’m sure would be your plan B) you won’t be able to stop terrorism unless violence ceases to affect their every day lifestyle.

  • Anonymous

    I think they should try reasoning with them killing them pisses them off

  • Kel Thuz

    Iranians are a civilized nation, ruled by a caste of religious fanatics and brutes. Somewhat similar to the situation during WW2 with Germans and Japanese. As much as I wouldn’t want to see the Land of Aryana burn, the means it took to eliminate Third Reich and Imperial Japan are the only effective means. I guess even supporting the Iranian dissidents and rebels would prove dangerous, as the situation in Syria shows. There is no “less bloody” option here.

  • BackwardsBoy

    We should begin this with a clear message to terrorists and their supporters by executing the illegal enemy combatants held in Gitmo, as is our legal right under the Geneva Conventions.
    Jettison this outrageous idea of “political correctness” and begin profiling air passengers as the Israelis do. There is no reason to waste time and money treating Americans as a threat.
    We’ll start to win the War on Terror when, and only when, we start treating our enemies as such.

  • Cody

    Where do you think that “caste of religious fanatics and brutes” came from?

  • Corinne Holeva

    I think a sixth step would be to take the leash off of Israel. The US should choose a side in the middle east (I.e. Israel) and back her right to exist 100%.
    Perhaps if the US had done this a long time ago (instead of having presidents like Carter who declared the terrorist Arafat to be a statesman) 911 might have been avoided.

  • Ross Hoffman

    Your comments for #3, specifically your justification for killing innocent civillians, are pretty absurd to me. I certainly don’t deny that some collateral damage is inevitable in a conflict, but your philosophy that the ultimate blame rests with those who initiated force is outrageous. To intentionally annhilate ALL mosques while they are occupied is about as inhumane an act as I can imagine. Someone else initiating force does not give the retaliator a blank slate for any civilian casualties they may cause. The ratio of innocent deaths to those within the leadership you are targeting would be extremely high, not to mention deliberately so. You don’t see any hypocrisy in responding to the unjust use of force with a supreme show of force several times greater than the initial act? That’s the kind of nonsense that could have wiped out civilization during the Cold War. Who decides this sort of thing? Why should the government be able to use my tax dollars to wipe out an entire country without my approval? In that sense it is like I am involuntarily contributing to the effort. Shouldn’t I have the freedom to not be involved in such a situation? Who is responsible for the inevitable anarchy and chaos that settles over Iran after you wipe out their entire infrastructure? Not our fault, Iran started it! Childish and borderline evil logic, if you ask me.

  • John Shepard

    If only these steps were taken, what a difference it would make, and mean, because to do so would mean that we in America have embraced individual rights once again, more clearly and certainly than even our Founding Fathers, and it would mean that we have re-limited our government to it’s proper function. We’d be a beacon of hope and freedom for the world.

  • Dale Netherton

    Instead you support endless “limited” wars that accomplish nothing?

  • johngaltspeak

    There is no reasoning with them. It has been tried for decades and failed.

  • johngaltspeak

    Cutting out a cancer (Islam) has its risks, but not cutting it out is fatal.

  • Chris Anthony Hojem

    Why is the justification that the blame rests with those who initiate force outrageous? who has actually put them at risk? America or Iran? Who gives America incentive to go to war with Islamist terrorists? Does their belief, their religion, not do that?

  • Rick_Ross

    It is kind of funny when the author says to kill their children because they are not America’s responsabilitiy, but demands them to “recognize the principle of individual rights”.

    I mean, this is a humor article, isn’t it?

  • Dlon Ornelas

    i agree and admitting that innocent children being murdered is not our problem HELLO WERE BOMBING THEM IT IS OUR PROBLEM obviously there intelligent enough when we call war they might evacuate civillians