Terrorism in general will be best defeated by military means (war).

"I support your war of terror!" (Borat) Proposition (as revised by both parties in the Comments section): "War is the best way to fight international terrorism" War is to be defined (also by agreement in Comments) to mean international or domestic military action sponsored by the government and targeted against any state, group or individual. We should also be aware that "military" is not limited to the "typical" armed forces (in the USA: Army, USAF, Navy) but can include mercenaries, intelligence services and law enforcement services. At the outset, this is not going to be an easy argument for Pro. The reason is, I am asked to exclude all other methods of combating international terrorism to show that military intervention is the best option. My opponent is likely in his second post to bring up a method I have not excluded (simply said, "missed). Fortunately I will get a chance to rebutt that in the next, penultimate, round. TARGETS OF TERRORISM The targets of terrorism, by definition, are usually "innocent" people, that is people who are not the terrrorist's "main targets". In many if not most situations, terrorists do not discriminate on the basis of age or gender. They will target whoever they need to to inspire anxiety and increase the chances of reaching their goal. The victims are usually non-combatants, including children. They are people who basically found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. Buses, planes, crowded places and high-rise buildings are some of the examples of terrorist targets. THE TERRORIST'S VALUES Given the above, terrorists tend to have a value set different to most of us. They have a low respect for human life. They are usually prepared to die for their cause (no doubt my opponent will try to use that in his favour). To some terrorists death is just a possibility (plane hi-jacking, planting a subway bomb), whereas others are on a suicide mission (suicide bombings, 9/11). It is arguable that people who are prepared to die for their cause have the ULTIMATE COMMITMENT to that cause. Their motives may vary. The vast majority of terrorists, however, are driven by religious or political motives (will provide sources if challenged to). METHODS OF COMBATTING TERRORISTS 1. Education 2. Economic aid 3. Negotiation 4. "due process" (arrest, trial, imprisonment) 5. Eradication 1. Education One might argue that by promoting education, we may be able to reduce terrorism. For example, we might be able to re-educate ultra-fundamental-islamists to understand that the West is not attempting to eradicate their religion, that the Western culture is tolerant, that we have no imperialistic ambitions. How will this work? How do we propose to infiltrate their training bases and Mosques in third-world countries with a taskforce of teachers? Anyone who has ever argued with a fanatic (not limiting to Muslem fanatics...some examples of such arguments can be seen on this website) will know that no logic can be applied to overcome a set of deeply seeded dogmas and beliefs. The Tooth Fairy created the wolrd, told me to destroy all those who don't believe in the Tooth Fairy. That's all I know, all I accept. Anyone who tries to convince me otherwise is my enemy and must be killed. People will not be educated unless they are prepared to listen. Education would also in many cases involve re-educating large parts of entire nations (in countries where governments support terrorism). In those situations, without the cooperation of their governments, the only way to achieve this would be through a regime change and that in turn could only be achieved through war (on a much larger scale than that proposed by myself). 2. Economic aid Terrorism is not driven by poverty. It is driven by unfaltering loyalty to a cause, whether political, religious or otherwise. Secondly, by providing economic aid to "terror-breeding" countries/regions, we would be sending out a message. The message is "we will buy you off". There is no deterrent in this. This is in fact encouragement. Thirdly, this option would be so vastly expensive that it simply would not be attainable. 3. Negotiation Negotiating with terrorists is the worst option of all. It shows terrorists worldwide that their activities attract the right kind of attention, that whenever they want to be listened to, their wishes considered, their cause given the time of the day, all they have to do is just bomb another bus. Again, this is encouragement. 4. Due process Of all the alternatives to war, this one appears the most compelling. In fact, it is a concept we are very comfortable with in our culture. Arrest, trial, punishment. However, in order to fight terrorism, punishment would have to have some deterrent value. It would have to have the effect of scaring other potential offenders against the conduct in issue. Will this work with terrorists? I contend it would not, for the following reasons: a) Terrorists are people with no value for life. This usually (though not always) includes their own life. They are often prepared to die for their cause. They are not scared of going to prison. Due process involves a lengthy pre-trial process, followed by trial. There is even a prospect of aquittal. b) If history is to teach us any lessons, there have been many cases of terrorists hijacking planes or kidnapping civilians only to demand the release of other imprisoned terrorists in exchange for the freedom of their victims. c) To arrest an international terrorist, one must first find him/her. This will often involve penetrating the borders of a foreign state (which often supports terrorism at least covertly), kidnapping the target and extracting him/her. If resistance is met (and I dare say more often than not it WILL be met) this is WAR (as per definition). 5. Military action My opponent will no doubt point out that killing terrorists through military action has no deterrent value because (as per my own argument) terrorists are usually prepared to die for their cause in the first place. Their death creates "heros/martyrs". That may be true, to an extent. However, military action doesn't just affect the terrorist. It also affects his community. It does have a deterrent effect. It can also have a pre-emptive effect. With skillful intelligence, one can attack terrorist cells and camps before they carry out their planned acts of terror. Furthermore, war does not necessarily involve killing. One can target terrorist assets. By bringing war to the international terrorist we bring the fight to his backyard. It enables us to carefully watch the area, to infilrtrate the terrorists' ranks, to ally ourselves with local groups, to in effect prevent or minimise future acts by the particular group. Is this fighting terror with terror? To an extent. Except we are not attacking innocents on a bus. We target the terrorist. I have no dobut my opponent will provide other alternatives and I look forward to the opportunity of discussing them.