The contention of some that the United States should show understanding or compassion toward those who would commit acts of terror, absolving them of the ultimate responsibility for their actions, was again proven a futile strategy if we expect to end the fatwa against western civilization.   All we succeed in doing when we try to make excuses for their behavior is give them more opportunities to hurt us because they need not fear us using our full power to exterminate them.

Trying to appease the demands of terrorists is really no different than giving into a child who is having a temper tantrum.  In both sets of circumstances the offender learns that an uncivilized behavior will garner rewards or attention.  Any good parent would remove a child who is "acting out" from the object of their desire or any other external stimuli that serves to further misbehavior.  The politically incorrect parent might tell the child to be quiet or there will really be something to cry about and then follow through on a pretty painful punishment.  Either method would serve to end the episode and make a child think twice about trying it again.   Personally, I have come to the conclusion there is nothing inherently wrong with an occasional spanking.  Behaviorism has proved that if the effect is painful, the cause will be avoided. 

So why aren't we employing what we know to be the correct way to end the scourge of terrorism once and for all?  Why are we expected to continually treat reasonably those who cannot be reasoned with instead of acknowledging them for what they are –ideological reprobates whose sole goal in this world is to eliminate westerners for the alleged crime of being infidels.  These terrorist thugs are nothing more than a bunch of gang bangers.  Non-Wahabi are not considered equals and are therefore dehumanized and victimized for no legitimate reason.  Terrorists are just school yard bullies armed with deadly weapons.

I propose we look at two examples from recent history to illustrate why the appeasement approach to terror is wrong and why the way the Bush administration has chosen to fight terror is correct.

Spain, a country which tried to appease terrorists by pulling its troops from Iraq experienced serious acts of terror against them.  By trying to cooperate and treat these animals as though there was some humanity that might be unleashed, Madrid (vulnerable to attack) was left on March 11, 2004 counting their dead and injured.

On the other hand, when Kamikaze pilots in Japan made their philosophy quite clear – that they would fight to the death – the United States simply took them at their word and dropped the bomb.  Many civilians died.  It was tragic.  But it was better than prolonging the war and possibly subjecting our civilian population to further devastation.  We didn't start the war with Japan.  We responded.  We were left no option but to fight. 

There is no difference today in the war against terror.  Terrorists – not insurgents or militants but terrorists – have literally declared war to the death on us.  So, we need to fight them to their death. 

Today we have a very serious choice to make.  We can continue to placate the appeasers among us or we can choose to secure a terror free future for our children.  One simply requires us to sit back and continue to allow terrorists to manipulate our freedoms.  The other requires steadfast determination and focus –deadly focus. 

There should be no more political correctness allowed to compromise our military.  Civilians in this country might not have to do the actual fighting but that doesn't mean civilians don't have to support the cause.  At the very least, civilians should not be allowed to demoralize the efforts of our troops without consequence. 

At some point, a good exterminator may have to stop using targeted strikes and ask the owner of a home to vacate the premises while setting off a bomb.  It is a last resort but sometimes there is no other choice.