I’m fairly sure that it was the brilliant nuclear warfare theorist (and noted futurist) Herman Kahn who explained that in a situation where a human being is left with a choice between a course of action which would certainly kill ten thousand people and one that has a one in ten chance of killing one hundred thousand people, the overwhelming majority will opt for the latter over the former. This is a natural human instinct: one which is willing to risk a worst-case outcome in search of an optimal outcome. A majority, even, I suspected would choose a course of action which had a 50% chance of killing one hundred thousand people over one that would definitely kill 10% of that number.

This calculation has a great deal of relevance to the War on Terrorism. In this war, we must make a fundamental choice: will we tolerate certain levels of terrorism (accepting some level of loss as simply the cost of living) or will we seek to wipe the terrorists out? Fundamentally, this is the choice before us. Implicit in the anti-war argument is the idea that the War on Terrorism is the result of an American overreaction to a problem that needs to be managed, rather than destroyed. Within the argument for a managerial approach to terrorism (arrest some terrorists, appease some of their grievances, and tighten security) is the acceptance that some Americans will die in terrorist acts, just as they did during the last two decades of the last century.

The alternative approach carries with it great risks, but also greater rewards. While it is true that, in confronting the terrorists directly, we risk making the situation even more dangerous, it is equally true that the revolutionary approach (capture or kill terrorists and topple governments that support them) is the only one which carries with it the possibility of a total success. Whereas a managerial response accepts terrorism as a fact of life, a revolutionary approach treats it as a contagion to be wiped out.

Of course, in the longer term, the arguments flip. A managerial response to terrorism is attractive because it promises the possibility of nothing more than a trickle of casualties, but it carries with it a very high risk of a bolt-from-the-blue event of cataclysmic proportions. The revolutionary approach, on the other hand, guarantees a steady steam of losses, especially among the US Armed Forces (and the civil populations of friendly nations), but it makes a catastrophic event less likely. By engaging terrorists in their homeland, we reduce the possibility that they will be able to stage major operations in the United States.

The temptation will be for any future Administration to adopt a managerial attitude towards terror. After all, such approach promises short-term stability and offers, over the long-term, the lowest possible level of losses. However, it is also the approach that carries with it the greatest danger in the long-term. While it is entirely possible that, if left alone, the terrorists will restrict their activities to such a degree as to remain below the radar, much as they did during the 1990’s, it is likely that they would use such a period to rearm, train new forces, and plan future operations: just as they did in the last decade.

Therefore, in order to choose the optimal course in the long-term we must, in the short-term, choose a course which runs counter to natural human instincts. In directly confronting the terrorists, we face the certainty of higher losses than those we would face from merely trying to contain the problem.

What does this mean in practice? It means following and extending the Bush doctrine. We must plant the seeds of liberty in the heart of the Middle East and, as they sprout and grow, defend them against all enemies. We must turn the entire region into a killing ground, where terrorists are drawn into traps and slaughtered. Offering targets to the enemy, as we have done in Iraq, guarantees losses, but it also offers the only real chance we have to draw thousands (or perhaps tens of thousands) of terrorists into the open where they can be killed.

In short, it comes down to one word: kill. It’ll cost money and lives to kill terrorists, but it’s the only option which gives us a chance to avoid a catastrophic event.