Some thoughts on the War on Terror

[al Roumi]

This is an interesting question!

The US has long chosen to fight its wars anywhere but on its soil, that at least is part of why it plays the role it does -and has the reputation you point out.

So what if the U.S. tried a non-violent approach to terrorism, focusing on increasing security rather than fighting the terrorists?

Arguably everything that has been done so far by the US (and others) under the banner of the WoT has been in the name of US Security. I think what you mean by "security" is an introspective focus? That could mean greater police surveilence of "potential suspects" (i.e. Muslims at large) -as has been the case in the UK. This (in the UK at least) has not been without its inconveniences as british Muslims are now fatigued and angry with clumsy government and Police labeling and handling. Hard to prove the comparative success of such an approach, of course -how do you prove a negative (thwarted attacks that would have happened)?

I'm thinking that if the U.S. were a more peaceful nation, it could go a long way to discrediting the notion that the US is evil and wants to destroy Islam, and would probably decrease the terrorists' ability to get new recruits.

While it would IMO be wonderful to see this, I think the damage has already been done. Al Qaida's "narrative" starts (in the modern sense) towards the end of the cold war. Add to that the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan which are going to provide ample ideological ammunition for quite some time -even if both countries somehow perform a miracle and become paragons of peace, propserity and Muslim enfranchisment, there have been thousands killed.