The "lone wolf" element of terrorism is often used as an argument against spending resources to go after militant groups overseas. Indeed, it is pretty much conventional wisdom these days that no matter what we do to disrupt militant groups like al Qaeda, the threat of terrorist attacks against the West will not be diminished, since all it takes is the theoretical lone actor to decide to take international politics into his own hands. It is even argued that the targeting of these groups will result in more attacks - a sort of backlash effect brought on by sympathetic but unaffiliated individuals.The reality, as this author points out, is that major terror attacks - like 9/11 - are pretty much exclusively the work of well-funded, well-organized groups. It would seem, then, that terrorism is not, as some would say, just an ineradicable part of daily life given that anyone could pull off an attack at any time. Rather, it would seem that, since major terrorist attacks are overwhelmingly carried out by organizations, the eradication (or at least disruption) of these groups would have a significant impact, if not solve the problem entirely.http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-lone-wolf-20110105,0,5668349.storySelected quotes:
1/6/2011 9:24:40 AM
^Sounds like a good time for a surge thenhttp://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/01/06/afghanistan.us.marines/index.html?hpt=T1
1/6/2011 11:18:41 AM
A few months is hardly time to integrate into the society to really learn what the hell needs to be done.Hopefully the troops already there can handle that and these new troops will simply free more of the currently deployed troops.
1/7/2011 9:57:29 PM