Felet med att ge efter. Detta är nog en av de mest slående analyser över hur fel det är att ge efter för terrorismen, att som Spanien gjorde, släppa på taget och låta terroristerna få som de vill:

"...let’s assume for the sake of the argument that terrorism really is a response only to our foreign policies. In that case, if we change our policies in response to terrorism in a way that the terrorists like, we are – to put it in economic jargon – increasing the payoff to terrorism. We are doing something that increases the realized value of the terrorists’ utility function. Assuming the cost of terrorism is constant ... then we would be increasing the payoff of terrorism while keeping its cost constant – in effect subsidizing terrorism.

[I am] precisely the kind of economist – that is, a market-oriented, libertarian-leaning economist – who knows that when you subsidize something, you will get more of it. And terrorism is, in this respect, no different from anything else. If you subsidize terrorism, you get more of it – and getting our troops out of the Middle East in response to terrorism would be subsidizing terrorism, and asking for more.

One might ask, if terrorists want us to change our foreign policies, how it is possible that changing our foreign policy could not end terrorism? I mean, it might be a high price to pay if you agree with our current foreign policies, but shouldn’t we weigh that against the price of continuing to suffer from terrorism?

(...)

Now, if we pull out of Iraq – in response to Arab terrorism of course – and Saddam or someone else like him takes power, who’s to say that Iraqis angry at us for pulling out don’t embark on terrorism to get us to come back? Imagine a large public bombing, followed by statements sent to the media claiming the attacks were punishment for “betraying the Iraqi people” by withdrawing and allowing a totalitarian dictatorship to take power. After all, if terrorism is the way to change American policies, why not?"

Helt klart lysande. Läs hela.  ¶ 21:34