As far as one can tell, there hasn't been an overreaction to the Times Square, SUV would be bomber.
It was also encouraging to hear President Obama say, "As Americans and as a nation, we will not be terrorized. We will not cower in fear. We will not be intimidated."[1]
And the authorities were able to catch the guy, Faisal Shahzad, before he was able to take flight out of the country. He is being held "on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction charges in a criminal complaint filed in federal court in Manhattan."[2]
As reported, he has been cooperative admitting "to receiving bomb-making training in Pakistan, confessing to buying the SUV, rigging it with a home made bomb and driving it to Times Square."[3]
Refreshingly, (so far at least), we haven't heard over the top complaints from the right wing echo chamber clamoring for holding and charging Shahzad as an "enemy combatant" and demand he has no rights and demand he should have been sent and held in indefinite detention (and languish uncharged) in Guantanamo.
It shows what effective investigative police work and cooperation among federal agencies can do when allowed to conduct their work without political interference and media incited hysteria.
Faisal Shahzad was involved in criminal activity, was caught and formally charged as such.
Maybe it was the failure in his attempt that has resulted in a calmer reaction as evidenced by the president's statement.
Yet even had Shahzad succeeded, a calm and measured response would have been appropriate.
Would an invasion of Pakistan have been an appropriate response or carpet bombing the Waziristan region of Pakistan (apparently where Shahzad was trained) been a "proportional" response and proper retaliation?
The point is terrorism and terrorists (actual or would be) are criminals. Organized crime activity doesn't require a military response. However, preemptive invasions of countries, particularly Islamic countries, inevitably results in more terrorism and the easier recruitment of more terrorists, particularly when innocents are maimed and killed by us. They may be "collateral damage" to us but they are real innocent men, women and children killed by us that create the suicide bombers and insurgents bent on revenge and taking action against us.
So was Shahzad part of the latter category of would be terrorists? That has yet to be determined.
Would ending our seemingly endless wars and occupations end all terrorism? Most assuredly not, but it would be a good place to start.
