Ruthlessness, anger, and terrorism

There's an old martial arts saying. "When your anger goes out, stay your hand. When your hand goes out, stay your anger."

The saying is based on a pragmatic recognition that anger and martial effectiveness are often mutually exclusive. Fearsome though a berserker's rage may be, the cool precision of an archer can be far more deadly.

I've been thinking about that saying a lot in the last few days. I've been seeing lots of angry demands in various places. (Although, to its credit, the United States government has not been one of those places.) The US should bomb Afghanistan to a smoking pool of molten glass. Muslims in the US should be deported. Any country with terrorist ties should feel the full wrath of the US military. People who question such proposals are accused of being "soft," "defeatist," and unsympathetic to the tremendous loss that the American people have suffered.

The samurai, from whom the Japanese martial arts descend, were neither soft nor defeatist. They were among the most fearsome warriors the world has ever seen. In part because they understood the difference between anger and ruthlessness.

Anger is a bright flame. It lashes out, creates horrible destruction, and then dies. In 1998, the anger of the US struck a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan that was believed to be a chemical weapons facility. The missile strike was widely seen as the irrational act of a bullying thug. It did little or nothing to prevent terrorism and badly undermined the moral authority of the US.

Ruthlessness is grim, implacable, and ice cold. It does not rest until the enemy—but only the enemy—is utterly eradicated. Rather than raining missiles on the slums of Kabul, or anywhere else, and declaring the problem "solved," a ruthless assault on international terrorism would take the time to pinpoint and destroy real targets.

Ruthless eradication of terrorists requires a global consensus that such acts are Not Allowed. The horrific scale of Tuesday's attacks may have helped to form just such a consensus. Many nations, including those with no particular love for the US, lost hundreds of citizens and are facing internal demands for action. The weight of world public opinion is, for once, solidly in favor of strong action.

Consensus is fragile, though. Irrational slaughter of innocent people will destroy it. Careful evidence gathering and precise planning of any military actions will strengthen it. With enough evidence, even the most outspoken critics of the US can be forced to admit that yes, this time the right people were targeted.

I am angry this week, angrier than I think I've ever been about something that did not (Thank God!) affect me personally. I'm sure the planners at the Pentagon are simmering with killing rage. I would be, in their place. For that very reason, now is the time for the Pentagon to stay its hand. When the hand, not of the Pentagon but of the world, does go out, I hope it will be well-aimed, and strong, and ruthless.

Ruthlessness, anger, and terrorism

Back to top