A reader provides a good breakdown.

“I think there are four possible responses to terrorism:

“1. Do what they want. If their goals are limited and discrete, and the cost

of giving into their demands is less than the cost of resistance, complying

with the terrorists’s demands solves the problem. Here, terrorism works.

“2. Do nothing. Accept a certain level of death and destruction

indefinitely. Use criminal law within your own country to punish who can

catch, and that’s all. It’s hard to say whether this means terrorism is

’working’ or not. Since the terrorists aren’t really suffering any

consequences and they’re inflicting casualties, I say terrorism is working

here too.

“3. Kill every last terrorist and eliminate the breeding grounds for

terrorists. Probably the most expensive option. You have to send military or

paramilitary forces all over the place, angering lots of people and

suffering casualties. It takes a long time and you’re never really sure when

you’re done. The terrorists may eventually be defeated, but it costs plenty

of blood and treasure. Does terrorism work here? Beats me.

“4. Make the cost of terrorism to the terrorists much greater than the

benefits. For example, carpet bomb or nuke something important to them if

they attack. If you’re credible, this is a very reliable method. Problem is,

credibility means you have to do it once, killing thousands or tens of

thousands of noncombatants. Definitely a case of terrorism not working.

“Nobody in the West is willing to do #4, and of the few who are capable of

doing #3, most of them don’t bother. So, if most countries are generally

using only #1 and #2, and #3 is uncommon and a wash anyway, then it’s only

natural that terrorism, on the whole, works.”

[Derb here] I think that sums it up pretty well, though I’d add some

qualifications. If the terrorists are inspired by other-worldly ideals, as

the Jihadists are, it seems to me that identifying “something important to

them” that is sufficiently material to be bomb-worthy could be problematic,

so that #4 might be ruled out on practical as well as moral grounds. Since

(my impression is) #3, to the extent that we have attempted it, doesn’t seem

to be going very well, #1 and #2 pretty much rule, and terrorism works.

Q.E.D.

This reader, and several others, have added to my list of terrorism’s

victories. The next such major victory will be the Palestinian state that

all respectable people now claim to wish for. That state, when it arrives,

will be largely a fruit of terrorism. If not for terrorism, in fact, the

word “Palestinian” probably wouldn’t even be in our language.