IF, as it seems likely, the tragic attack in Manchester turns out to be the work of a suicide bomber, we should mourn the dead, help the injured, counsel the grieving – and not do anything stupid.
The last decade and a half have shown that these events are now part of life, not just in major Western cities such as Paris, Berlin, Boston or London, but throughout the world in Mumbai, Lagos or Hotan. What they are not, are incidents whose likelihood (or not) is related to some instant response or lashing out.
At this point the roots of what is occurring in this ongoing “war”, be it in Syria, Yemen, Nice or Manchester, are so convoluted that explanation is extremely difficult. What can be argued, however, is that an instant military response or immediate escalation of violence in reaction to such attacks has achieved little or nothing, and might even be counterproductive.
Over the last 15 years, the US, UK and their allies have waged an ongoing war, with moments of escalation and extreme force, yet the “enemy” adapts, changes shape and continues to attack. Even if, as is very possible, this attacker had pledged loyalty to Daesh, there is no evidence that filling the Syrian desert with more military ordnance will make our lives any safer. Indeed, the opposite may be true.
On the other hand, we must always keep in mind that we in the West live lives of extraordinary safety in relative and historical terms. These incidents are terrible, and they occur with what seems to be a drip-drip regularity, but they lead to a very small number of deaths compared to the most mundane of activities.
In the US, it has been calculated that in the last 20 years (including 9/11) Americans were more likely to be killed by lightning, or indeed by their own clothes melting or igniting, than by a terrorist attack launched by a non-US citizen. So mourn, yes. Condemn, yes. But let’s not start dropping bombs because we feel we must do something.
Phillips O’Brien, is professor of strategic studies, School of International Relations, St Andrews University
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel