Thomas Sowell is Wrong

Thomas Sowell's latest column, Unlimited Enemy, is incorrect in my opinion for a number of reasons.

"Today's version is that, no matter how many Middle East terrorists we kill, new ones will take their place and we will have nothing to show for all our efforts and sacrifices."

What Mr. Sowell fails to recognize is that (a) the insurgents in Iraq don't need a lot of resources, and (b) the issue isn't that no matter how many terrorists you kill, there will be more, the issue is that as long as a you occupy the country, it is difficult to kill insurgents without creating more. Methods of killing those who pose a threat to the US that do not involve occupying foreign countries for long periods tend to cause less regeneration, methinks.

Moreover, the point is also being made that a successful strategy needs a good political component, not just "kill 'em all." As Afghanistan is proving, you can avoid increasing the insurgency too much if you avoid leaving too big a footprint.
Put another way, if you choose to occupy a foreign counry, there are less costly and more effective ways to defeat those who would attack you than trying to "kill 'em all."

Of course, there is a way that "killin' 'em all" would work; if we assume that the entire populace of Iraq is our enemy (or at least particular segments, e.g. the Sunni Arabs, and go about wiping them out).

He also resuscitates the old canard, "If Iraq is not connected to terrorism, why are so many terrorists desperate to drive us out."
Uh - Mr. Sowell, terrorists don't fight "for terrorism." They fight for causes. There are a lot of people who hate the idea of the US occupying an Arab country. The fact that they may be willing to use terrorism to accomplish that goal does not mean that Iraq was essential to their plans previously.

Also, not everyone who attacks the US in Iraq is properly labeled a "terrorist." People who deliberately kill innocent civilians, like the ones who set of bombs in Kurdistan in February and who set off bombs against the Shiite cleric back in August of 2003, or the people who blew up a children's bus, presumably to force the British troops out in the streets where they could get a better shot at them definitely are, but I don't think that attempting to kill occupying military troops is properly classed as terrorism.
Which is not to say that our soldiers shouldn't kill people who fight against them, but let's call the insurgents what they are, and not use labels that are essentially propaganda. (That also goes for those antiwarriors who call the insurgents "freedom fighters").