Signalling

According to Joshua Geltzer, author of US Counter-terrorism Strategy and al-Qaeda: Signalling and the Terrorist World-View, acting like a pissed off "daddy," might not be the strongest course of action for the president.

BOB GARFIELD: Would you recommend to a president of the United States, in the event of successful attacks, maybe in which hundreds or thousands of lives are lost, that he similarly understate the response that we don't go into full mobilization mode, we don't give succor to our terrorist enemies by overreacting, even when the damage is catastrophic?

JOSHUA GELTZER: I think that to the extent that we can react effectively but quietly, that combination is ideal, or at least the best of various tough alternatives. So, to take an example, I think this administration which has actually ramped up the Predator strikes along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border has spoken about them less than the previous administration did. So even while engaging in more of them, it’s said less about them.

Now, we don't know exactly how successful these attacks have been, but the idea of doing them quietly and not exulting in particular successes may allow for the practical success without the counterproductive signaling.

I'm not thrilled with the idea of Predator Drones along the border, though I understand the appeal to the Pentagon and the White House. I do, however, agree that speaking less about them -- and less bellicosely -- even as we ramp up their use, is a change for the better.