Terrorism in Perspective

     In a recent presentation, Pres. Obama was discussing terrorism and the Jihad. He said there are different meanings for Jihad. However, an Internet search for the meaning of Jihad brings up only one basic meaning. The word broadly means struggle. From there, Muslims go into various definitions involving application or action. One notable interpreter says that Islamic militants regard Jihad as an unlimited offensive to bring the whole world under Islamic law.
    While the above may be considered a basis for Islamic terrorism, a terrorist invariably requires a few other characteristics. He must have in mind a specific enemy. He must be incensed that that enemy has done and continues to do significant damage to the people of his religious faith, and he must be young enough with enough energy to take aggressive action.
With the above limitations, the number of actual terrorists in the massive worldwide number of Muslims is extremely small.
In addition, terrorists generally lack the ability to coordinate into a significant army, although they can and do form small groups. In effect, most terrorists are rogues, with individual grievances motivating them to do preposterous acts of violence, but their actual power to do real damage can be very variable.
If a terrorist's motivation is to do damage to a society to the extent that enough fear is generated for that society to capitulate to the objectives of Jihad, it is apparent that this would never succeed. The acts of violence are usually too small to significantly affect the mindset of the society. The most significant terrorist act to date was the destruction of the NY Twin Towers on 9/11.  Most people also realize that a nuclear bomb set off by a terrorist is at least possible. In spite of this, the US population has not self destructed to conform to the wishes of Islam. I also predict that it would not, even if a nuclear device were detonated Terrorism is not an effective means to achieve a position of dominance. Examples are the ineffectiveness of Indian raids in attempting to deter the advance of the white man in settling the West and the continuing Arab terrorist activities against the Israelis. The only objective that terrorism achieves is to increase the wariness of the target population. Even if fear is generated in some members of the target population, it is not enough to significantly change the objectives or the life style of the whole.
In essence, terrorists are then mostly a societal nuisance with a slight potential to do catastrophic damage, in the same manner as natural events. Rain on a picnic is a nuisance. Tornados are local devastations. Drought and floods are regional disasters, and the world could be hit by a large asteroid or the Sun dim in its power. However, we do not live in fear, We take as many precautions to protect ourselves as we reasonably can, and we persevere through life. We will also do so with terrorists.
The US is now spending billions of dollars for terrorism control and essentially nothing on weather control. Presumably the difference is justified, because one is man-made destruction and the other is not. However, that seems to an unjustified emotional and arbitrary distinction.
In the writer's opinion, we need to continue terrorism control and do it as efficiently as possible, within limits of a budgeted amount, In the South we have cockroaches, which we cannot eliminate. We control them. In site of the ineffectiveness of terrorism, people will continue to use it. The Western settlers had homesteads and even forts wiped out by Indian raids. No matter how much money we throw at the present problem, we will continue to have terrorist activity, and we should start to accept it, as did the developers of the West and the present day Israelis.