So, what should we do then?

That is the question I pose to the contributors at Sollicitudo Rei Socialis. They have posted on the terrorist attacks in London and taken the opportunity to once again call for an end to the war on terror or at least a change in strategy. The post is closed to comments so I hope no one will be bothered that I comment here.

The contributors pose some "hard questions, unpopular questions".

In the wake of yet another deadly attack, we wonder if it might be time to reevaluate our methods in the war on terrorism. After New York, Madrid, and now London -- not to mention the countless attacks throughout the Middle East -- is it perhaps time for a new approach? After September 11, international coalitions invaded Afghanistan and later Iraq, in the hopes of eradicating global terrorism. On the contrary, however, global terrorism has been strengthened and it seems that al-Qaeda is thriving. One of America's primary goals was to keep the war on terrorism off of our shores -- so far we have done that, but at what cost? By fighting so hard to keep the war on terrorism off of our shores, have we inadvertently brought it to the shores of our friends in Europe? Today it came to the shores of the United Kingdom; months before, to the borders of Spain; after this, we cannot know where or when it will strike again.

Is it not time for us to raise the legitimate question: Can the violence of terrorism truly be fought with violence in return? Is it not time to ask ourselves if the war on terrorism will be won by winning land and body counts, or by winning hearts and minds? Is it not time to ask ourselves if we should put aside our guns and bombs, in favor of words of peace and nonviolent resistance? Is it not time to ask ourselves, in the light of the starkly serious circumstances presented to us today, if we are truly any better off, truly any safer, almost five years into the war on terrorism? Is it not time to ask ourselves if our war on terrorism has perhaps really been what the terrorists have wanted all along? Is it not time to ask ourselves if we have perhaps given them the jihad they were looking for, bolstering their numbers by the violence we ourselves have committed against people who otherwise would not be terrorists?

But they suggest no answers. Well, at least not directly. Some of the questions are answers in themselves. And, Nathan Nelson has previously answered. His answer is to defeat Republicans in 2006 and 2008 and replace them. What does he wish the replacements to do once elected? I am not sure, but that seems to be his answer.

So if the contributors at Sollicitudo Rei Socialis are truly soliciting answers, here are mine.

...is it perhaps time for a new approach? No.

...have we inadvertently brought [the war on terror] to the shores of our friends in Europe? No.

...can the violence of terrorism truly be fought with violence in return? Maybe, but given the nature and ideological hatred they have for us, I doubt it.

...[will] the war on terrorism...be won by winning land and body counts, or by winning hearts and minds? Unfortunately, by body counts.

...should [we] put aside our guns and bombs, in favor of words of peace and nonviolent resistance? Unfortunately, no.

...are [we] truly any better off, truly any safer, almost five years into the war on terrorism? Yes!

...[has] our war on terrorism...perhaps really been what the terrorists have wanted all along? Maybe, but nothing suggests they would have stopped if we had not gone into Afghanistan and Iraq. (See below)

...have [we] perhaps given them the jihad they were looking for, bolstering their numbers by the violence we ourselves have committed against people who otherwise would not be terrorists? Same answer as above.

I understand why they ask these questions. I have asked some of them my self. But, I am not convinced we brought this war onto ourselves. It started before we went into Iraq and even before 9/11. The evidence: American hostages in Iran in 1979, attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, airliner hijackings and hostage takings throughout the 1980s, the first attack on the WTC in 1993, the attack on Khobar Towers in 1996, the attacks on two of our embassies in East Africa in 1998, the planned and foiled attack during the millennium celebrations in Seattle in 1999, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, and the attack on our very own Nation on 9/11. So to suggest that our response, the world's response, to 9/11 caused further attacks in Bali, Madrid, and now London is without merit. They have been doing this for a long time and for other reasons which I believe the contributors at Sollicitudo Rei Socialis fail to, or outright refuse, to acknowledge. And though I wish this violence did not need to be met with our own, I have seen no proof that the men who carry out these terrible and horrific acts against civilians will stop if we only attempted to win their "hearts and minds" or by using "words of peace and nonviolent resistance".

I do wish there was a better way to end this war, but given the hatred the terrorists have for us, right now we need to fight. The Church, through Her teachings on waging a just war, is a guide for us in fighting the terrorists and their state sponsors. We have failed in some respects to follow this teaching, and we, as Catholics, should point out when our leaders and the men and women in uniform fail, but we should not abandon the effort. Rather we should correct the wrongs and ensure they do not happen again.

For now, the real answer continues to be waging a just war and promoting democracy in the Middle East. The the contributors at Sollicitudo Rei Socialis are free to comment and seriously answer my original question.