It's not that I disagree with the points brought up by this article (how could I! We've known these things to be true for years!), but I'm worried about the leap that people make, namely that military action isn't necessary.
It's hard to imagine any effective strategy that doesn't involve killing people in Syria. It's disgusting, necessary, and -- I willingly admit -- not sufficient.
> It's hard to imagine any effective strategy that doesn't involve killing people
I disagree, one is actually described in the article:
"[For] the youth of the nation are closer to the innate nature [of humans] on account of the rebelliousness within them."
Do you think capitalism/democracy/whatever mix we have in the West does a good job of preventing these people fighting for "Jihad"?
We don't really give young people (say ages 15-25, before males are fully emotionally developed) a chance to "rebel safely". We don't even have a definition of what it could be! I'll just leave it here, there are many options where to go from there, I think.
It actually reminds of "drug education" we had in high school. The guy was a social worker who worked with people on drugs, gave them clean syringes, put them on methadone, etc. His idea basically was, it's perfectly cool if you want to try it, but it's better to understand the risks and wait a little bit, until you grow older. I think it was very sane approach (and very counter-intuitive to people who support war on drugs and "say no" and similar things). Maybe the same should be done with weapons and war, and if someone still wants to try the war, send him as a journalist to war zone.
Recently I had another related weird idea: Someone should write a sci-fi story about a society which puts its youths through a very strict, military like institution. It would then be revealed that the whole purpose of the institution is to make young people rebel against authority, in a safe environment. That would be akin to a successful graduation exam, because the society would believe that those people who do that are going to be the best citizens.
Well, Robert A. Heinlein took the problem by the other end in Starship Troopers, military service is not mandatory, but required to be able to vote. So the only people that might be capable to rebel are eventually the only ones that won't.
That sci-fi book was already written, "This Perfect Day" by Ira Levin. A computer is in control of a nearly global utopian socialist society, but critical thinking, emotions, and familial attachment is strictly discouraged via regular drug-aided "therapy", propaganda, surveillance, etc. A softer, peace-loving, technocratic version of 1984. The protagonist rebels, relapses, and rebels again, eventually in spectacular fashion. It's revealed that the computer is used by an elite class who do all the planning, and who grow their ranks by taking in those who are the most successful and clever in their rebellion. It may not be quite what you're looking for, because some members of this hidden leadership are quite cynical, but many are also sincere and think that their work is good citizenry.
I dunno, I'd say the social norm involves kids that wish to rebel do so by smoking, drinking, doing drugs, the odd bit of petty crime and having underage sex. If anything, Muslim kids are the exception to this standard rule (but given the reported behaviour of some prominent terrorists, that's probably too much of a simplification too)
I quite like your story concept but I think the realistic plotline would have many of the most successful kids at defying the rules doing so because they have no scruples whatsoever about throwing their classmates under the bus to get their way, whilst even the relatively sane rebels might feel inclined to celebrate their graduation by continuing to altogether reject the system.
what you said its all true but there are out there already some fanatics who wants to kill you, they can.
and they did, and i don't know how many more life should be letting to "statistic danger", in the various places of the world.
its really hard to calculate, really.. i don't know.
This might be hard to understand for us, but I am sure there are Sunni civilians who would rather be under ISIS rule that Assad or Iraki rules. Isis found a fertile ground because Sunnis area were oppressed or neglected by their central government.
At any sign of serious ground military actions, all that ISIS fighter have to do is to hide in their civilian population. And that will be Fallujah all over again.
This is the reason why currently no one consider seriously to send ground troops.
It's also hard to imagine how not killing doesn't facilitate the vile activities of daesh.
I swear this is the late 1930's all over again. "Surely Herr Hitler will get tired of invading countries before he gets to France. Surely military action will only anger him more..."
Csallen is right: the point of the metaphor is that we're currently engaged in a knee-jerk pacifist reduction, and that it's not the first time we (the French) have done that in recent history.
You can tell me we learned our lesson during WWII, but that's just a proclamation of faith.
You're still missing the point. An analogy is not meant to show that two things are similar. Therefore responding by saying that they are, in fact, different doesn't refute anything.
couple of thousands pinpointed (and larger) airstrikes, comprehensive wipeout of terror cells in Europe.
maybe it sound extreme, but its a clear action to-face the situation.
ofcurse the first witch should come to mind is to save as many lifes and dignity etc. .
and i think solving it without killing will only make it a dragging problem.
"Comprehensive wipeout of terror cells in europe" is difficult because the whole point of a terror cell is that they blend perfectly with the general population.
It's hard to imagine any effective strategy that doesn't involve killing people in Syria. It's disgusting, necessary, and -- I willingly admit -- not sufficient.