CULTURAL REVOLUTIONSrnT E R R O R I S T AITACKS in New YorkrnCit- and Washington, D.C., hae focusedrnthe attention of nian on the dangersrnof miHtant Lslam. Bnt as nsnal, onrrnacnons talking heads and eHtes arc oxerlookingrndie two most important aspects ofrndie attack: die rc ial of die eentnrics-oklrn iolent conflict betw ecu Islam and Clirishanih’,rnand die growing ca]5acit and sophisticahonrnof non-state organizations tornchallenge die nation-state.rnHistf)rian John Kcegan tells ns that “Islamrnhas blood’ borders.” We must lookrnwith a jaundiced ee on diose who claimrnthese terrorist acts represent onh” a tinrnsplinter group of cra/cd fanatics —thernimplicahon being that all other Muslimsrnare peaceful liberal democrats just likernns. Granted, these acts of iolencc arernbeing conducted b a fanatical miuorih,rnbnt the ‘IV scenes of mobs cheering inrnplaces like Islamabad and Gaza demonstraternthat riierc is grow iiig support for jihadrnupon die C’hristian est, parheularlyrndie United States. Onr rctaliator- actsrnwill onl^ foster more snp]3ort for terroristsrnin Islamic countries.rnl^ntnrc historians iiia well iew SeptemberrnII, 2001. as die opening blow ofrndie latest round in die clash between Islamrnand Ghristendom. Israeli historianrnMartin aii Crexckl reminds us: “If therngrowing iiiilitane of one religion conhnnes,rnit almost will compel odiers to followrnsuit. People will be drien to defend theirrnideals and wa of life . . . llius Muliamniad”rns recent re i al nia- ct bring on diatrnof die Cjliristian I ,ord, and He w ill not berndie Lord of loe but of batdes.”rnThe terrorist attacks also denionstratedrnthe growing abilih and sophistication ofrnprixate, non-g()ernmcntal organizationsrnto challenge die monopoK’ on iolencerndiat die nadou-state claims for itself Ourrnsnrxeillance satellites, unclear weapons,rncarrier battle groups, stealfli bombers, andrnother push-button war gadgetr- failedrnto deter die terrorist attacks on New YorkrnCAh and the Pentagon. ‘Iliosc acts demonstratedrna coordinated, well-planned effortrnnornialK’ a.ssociated with die militan- operationsrnofadaneed nation-states. Onr terroristrnfoes are fighting b- dieir own rules, notrnthose of die Pentagon —and onr rules ofrnwar ma be outdated.rnOur response to diis dircat will not bernlimited to bombing a few of Osama binrnLaden’s eaes into dust or acceleratingrnAfghanistan’s drie to return to tiie StonernAge. The iiiilitar response, die politicians’rnmuch-tonled “war on terrorism,”rnwill resemble a connler-gncrrilla war,rnand our Armed Forces and citizens are illrnequipped to conduct such a campaign,rnfo win die war on terrorism, our troopsrnmust become as rudiless as dieir will-o’-rnthe-wisp euciii-. Our foes lack an- scruplesrnin conducting their jihad, hut ourrntroops liae ethics, and in the age ofrnGNN warfare, we will fare badl. Suchrnan eiidea’or w ill take a long hme, and itrnwill not be bloodless. Will die Americanrn1.1111)1 ic cntlnre such a lengtln effort? Gi-rnen die ietnam experience, I would berntempted to sa’ no, bnt since die carnagernoccurred widiin the Ihiited States, diatrnattitude iiia change.rnW bile the politicians beat the warrndrums, tlie seem to be acting like eriniinologists,rnelaiming tlie will “hunt downrnand bring to justice ” those responsible.rnHauling bin Laden before some courtrnwill not deter future acts of terrorism.rnWhat should we do with terrorists? Mrnremarks to students at Washington eK.’ LeernUniersit” in 1997 are just as a]3plieablerntoda’: “Hunt em down and kill cm likernrabid dogs.” We had better be preparedrnto do diis, rather than treat terrorists asrncriminals —because that w ill not halt terrorism.rnf’ailnrc to counter terrorism sneccssfulKrnwill hae dire eonsec|uenccs for diern,nieriean nation-state, because it willrnhave failed to fulfill one of its most elementalrnfimctions: protection of its citizens.rnWhen a state fails to ]3rotcct its citizens,rnit lorfeits their loalt, and thisrnl()alt will be transferred to whateerrngroup or organizahon can protect diem.rn’I’lie attacks in NewAork Gih and on diernPentagon are sinptouiatie of die nationstate’srnfaltering abilit to retain its monopoK’rnon iolencc —or, in plain words,rnto protect its citizens’ lies and |Koperh.rnNobod knows what die ulhmate significancernof this failure would be, bnt it isrnlikcK to be eeiitful —and er blood-.rn— Mowaii NoiralrnT H E ORLD I R D E C E N PER attackrnnun” prtnc to be one of die grimmestrnmoments in modern .Vmerican historwrnIhiderstanclabK, most Americans are enragedrnand demand reenge, w hile despairrnand fear are c ident e’en in [jcoplcrnwho, onl-a er short time ago, managedrnto maintain a fairK detached iew oi thernpolihcal scene. In diis atmosphere, crrnfew are prepared to complain about diernstrict new sceurit” precautions diat arernbeing imposed at airports and public ficilitics.rnQuite apart from the grid thernfeel lor die ietiiiis of terrorism, citizensrnwho would normalK be senside to go-rnenimcnt encroachments ou ciil libertiesrnbeliexe diat rights liac to be ieldcd inrnorder to secure better proteedon.rnIn dicor, this idea of a tradeoff is notrnunreasonable; in practice, die notion isrnpoorK founded. When rights arc erodedrnin die heat of war and terrorism, tlicsernchanges rarcK |3roduce an practicalrnbenefit be()nd a general sense of communalrnsacrifice. And once tlie are gone,rnthese rights and liberhcs are er, vr ditficultrnto regain. I o take an olnious examplernof a futile expansion ofotficialrnpowers: Just what has been gained b thernniassie extension of idciitit cheeks atrnairports and the requirement diat traelersrncarr- official identity cards? An bodrnwho beliees that such controls will ]3rc-rncnt terrorism is obioush” deluded: Asrncer antiterrorism professional knows,rnthe first requirement for a serious terniristrnis the abilih to procure inimacnlalc lalscrnpajjcrs.rnIn die age of die internet, mau of diernerifieal struggles for rights neces.sariU occurrnon die electronic frontier; here, too,rnterrorist outrages pr()ide a conementrnexcuse to encroach on iudiidual rights.rnOxer the last two cars, priac” battlesrnliax’c raged oer a ])roposcd LBI svsteuirncalled Garni{>re, designed to interceptrn])oteiitialK’ asl numbers of e-mails inrnsearch of suspect comninnieations dealingrnwidi (for instance I terrorism, drugrntralficking, or child pornograpln. C^onrtrnwarrants would not, of course, |.’)la am”rnrole in diis process, (“arnicore was fieree-rnK’ opposed b’ a broad cross-section ot aetixists,rniuclndiug political e()useratiesrnand econoiuic liberals, in addition to dierntraditional ciil-liberties constitucnex.rnThe whole idea of e-mail snooping hasrnbeen des|)eratcl controversial, and itrntook a bold bureaucrat to defend it — atrnleast, until the fall of the World ‘liadern(-enter. SuddcuK, massixe e-mail snoopingrnbecame die norm, (Jarni’orc surxcillaucernbecame widespread, and nothingrn(VCHRONICLESrnrnrn