The War On Reason
The administration doesn't want you to think too hard. And lucky for them, they're in power a country where a whole lot of people don't. In The Washington Post, Zbigniew Brzezinski points out the nebulousness of the term, the "War On Terror":
The "war on terror" has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America's psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.The damage these three words have done -- a classic self-inflicted wound -- is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves. The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.
But the little secret here may be that the vagueness of the phrase was deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors. Constant reference to a "war on terror" did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue. The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Support for President Bush in the 2004 elections was also mobilized in part by the notion that "a nation at war" does not change its commander in chief in midstream. The sense of a pervasive but otherwise imprecise danger was thus channeled in a politically expedient direction by the mobilizing appeal of being "at war."
To justify the "war on terror," the administration has lately crafted a false historical narrative that could even become a self-fulfilling prophecy. By claiming that its war is similar to earlier U.S. struggles against Nazism and then Stalinism (while ignoring the fact that both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were first-rate military powers, a status al-Qaeda neither has nor can achieve), the administration could be preparing the case for war with Iran. Such war would then plunge America into a protracted conflict spanning Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and perhaps also Pakistan.
Solutons? He doesn't offer any. I don't agree with everything he writes, and I do think Islam is a danger to free western society, but he's got a point here:
Just last week, here in Washington, on my way to visit a journalistic office, I had to pass through one of the absurd "security checks" that have proliferated in almost all the privately owned office buildings in this capital -- and in New York City. A uniformed guard required me to fill out a form, show an I.D. and in this case explain in writing the purpose of my visit. Would a visiting terrorist indicate in writing that the purpose is "to blow up the building"? Would the guard be able to arrest such a self-confessing, would-be suicide bomber? To make matters more absurd, large department stores, with their crowds of shoppers, do not have any comparable procedures. Nor do concert halls or movie theaters. Yet such "security" procedures have become routine, wasting hundreds of millions of dollars and further contributing to a siege mentality.
Thanks, Norm!
It's been no secret that for years the Bush administration fills its appointed positions with people that follow the company line which is pretty much anti-abortion and Iron Age beliefs. In turn, I'm sure these people, whenever possible, hire underlings that buy into the same garbage. By the time the "filtering down" affect takes place, is it any wonder our society, at all levels, is filled with rules that make no sense?
Bill Henry at March 29, 2007 3:06 AM
I ain't scared. We're not going to lose to the terrorists - our ideas, values and way of life are better. Plus we've got guns and bombs to spare if need be.
I am concerned about the willingness with which the nebulous fear that has surrounded our society since the 9/11 attacks has led people to acquiesce to all sorts of small and large intrusions upon our privacy and persons in the name of keeping us safe from "terror.*" It's far more difficult to roll back than to create these instruments of "security."
* I find the use of the word "terror" in this way, as in "terror attacks on Baghdad checkpoints," really annoying. It's a terrorist attack. Isn't saying it the other way granting the terrorists success? Am I splitting semantic hairs, or is that extra syllable so hard?
justin case at March 29, 2007 9:17 AM
Consider the collateral damage from 9-11: the time and money spent on security measures, pointless and otherwise. (Just guessing--I don't have figures--but I would think it runs into billions of person-hours and dollars.) Add this to the lives and property lost in the attack, compare it to the enemy's cost (18 lives, plus money costs that probably didn't run over six figures) and 9-11 has to rate as the most successful military operation in human history.
Rex Little at March 29, 2007 10:56 AM
Rex, I don't think it counts as a military operation.
It seems we have a struggle here between those who create and build, and those who destroy. We've always had our thieves and murderers. Islamic terrorists are more of the same.
doombuggy at March 29, 2007 1:06 PM
"war on terror" is a euphamism. Does the administration (or the American people) care if the Basques set off a bomb in Madrid or the IRA set off one in London? The war is against Islamism. But that sounds too xenophobic so it was changed to the silly "war on terror".
"similar to earlier U.S. struggles against Nazism and then Stalinism (while ignoring the fact that both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were first-rate military powers, a status al-Qaeda neither has nor can achieve),"
The earlier struggle wasn't against Stalinism per se, it was against the much broader philosophy of Communism. Islamism like Communism is an international philosophy not a nationalist one. Of course the difference between now and then is nuclear weapons. A country (or other entity)doesn't have to be a first rate military power to cause massive civilian casualties in the U.S.
I think it's a constant balancing act. Are there people who are overhyping the danger for financial or political gain? Absolutely! But I also think some are dangerously (and sometimes willfully) ignorant of the very real threat that exists.
winston at March 29, 2007 1:16 PM
>I find the use of the word "terror" in this way, as in "terror attacks on Baghdad checkpoints," really annoying.
Yeah, me too. They should call them what they are, acts of resistance to the occupying army.
Stu "El Inglés" Harris at March 29, 2007 2:40 PM
I think terror is bad.
PurplePen at March 29, 2007 2:57 PM
9-11 should be considered as a great military operation based on the numbers:
The money Al Qaeda spent for combined attacks on WTC and the Pentagon: $200,000.00.
The Pentagon's budget for 2001-2002: $325,000,000,000.00.
How much do we need to spend to feel safe? Or perhaps the focus on money is not the solution and could be the actual problem.
That $200,000.00 spending spree caused a major economic hiccup to the US economy and extended the nightmare world of one spoiled Yemeni (Bin Laden’s father is not a native Saudi) to 300 million Americans and certain parts of the world.
Also, remember terrorism is not a military operation in the conventional sense, but as a cry for attention. It was clearly an act of propaganda used to unify the Muslim world as a monolithic entity and to put the West on notice.
Now do the current policies of the George Bush years add more ammo to unite the Arab world? His inability to capture Bin Laden and his merry bunch of religious psychos creates an impression that the USA is this clumsy giant that can be easily beaten.
Joe at March 29, 2007 6:36 PM
Also, the attack on Pearl Harbor was a brilliant military operation, but a disaster for Japan, because there would be no negotiated peace with the Allies during WWII.
Now could 9/11 be interpreted as a disaster for the West or the Middle East?
Joe at March 29, 2007 6:50 PM
Personally, I think that a video made by a producer I know can definitely solve all of the problems of the war on terror...With the new international peace symbol!
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/435455/the_international_symbol_of_peace
I thought it was funny, at least. :)
Oh well...As Bob Dobbs says..."Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke."
Jamie at March 29, 2007 7:17 PM
Hail Bob!
The main problem with the Bush Administration's handling of GWOT and the Iraq Project was mainly in 2 areas:
1. A complete lack of knowledge on the Middle East, history, language and Islam. Which is the obvious.
2. Implementing the misinformed plans through a "narrowing" process at the White House and the DOD. The strategy meetings would have groups of various experts. Military, State Dept., White House and the CIA would have strategy sessions. If there was an expert who disagreed or questioned with the White House/DOD's views... they were not invited to the next meeting and so on. The enforcers of the WH and DOD would narrow out the potential critics and get a room full of cheerleaders and brag about their access to Pennsylvania Avenue during the Friday cocktail parties in Georgetown.
That is DC in a nutshell under the Bush years.
Joe at March 29, 2007 9:39 PM
"...acts of resistance to the occupying army."
America gets an "F" as an occupier: the flow of money is massively from us to the other country; we push for self-determination; we have no tradition of population transfer, other than us taking in a bunch of refugees; we put up a protective military umbrella forever, so if you are smart, like Japan, you take the opportunity to build the worlds 2nd largest economy without the burden of a military budget.
doombuggy at March 29, 2007 10:22 PM
What happened in Japan was what we WANTED to have happen.
Fools smirk about this was an "imperial" maneuver, but can't recognize the implications of our being so shitty at it.
Crid at March 30, 2007 4:25 AM
Well, of course we have to use 'war on terror'; would you ever dream of seeing a headline that read "War on Islamo-facists", or "War on all assholes who would do us harm"?
We have to choose, and subsequently coin, generic sounding phrases because we don't want to piss of the people we are referring to. I don't think that there was a vernacular crafting session when this phrase came out- probably the lesser of X number of evils.
Justin, you make a good point in that the concessions of our privacy, little by little, add up. But I am willing to make those small sacrifices however inconvenient they may be. I am stationed in Hawaii and since September 11 it has been a pain in the butt to get on base. Inconvenient, but I understand that when there are extremeist ass hats who have really come out of their ammo closets to do us harm that certain security measures must be staged.
It is not a sufferable lemming mindset to comply with these minor security measures. We have just enjoyed our freedoms for so long that we get irritated when something inconveniences us. have you ever tried to board a plane in Israel? Racial profiling and secondary security checks- if you look suspicious, you're gonna get checked. Unlike Honolulu International Airport who checks my caucasion wife who has two small children (one of whom is an infant) in tow, a diaper bag bursting at the seams, and is pushing a maneuverability-impaired stroller. She gets checked; the guy in line behind her who fits the visual profile of a terrorist- "You pau, braddah. Aloha."
Historically, we aren't very good at assessing the economic implications of our honed ass kicking skills. Doombuggy made an excellent point with his/her assessment and giving us an "F". Honestly, I don't know how we can fix that short of telling people to go shit in a hat, but that will never fly. Our policymakers' mindset is one of "If we kick your ass for messing with us we will take it upon ourselves to gt you back on your feet."
This is my first post on this site (sent here from Patterico) and I hope you will indulge my ramblings.
Trickish Knave at March 30, 2007 12:29 PM
Trick, it's one thing if you've got armed, muscular young guys handling your security. But in airports, the public has marginally literate guys with diabetes making minimum wage.
The problem with calling it "Homeland security" is that it has nothing to do with what we're about. America isn't about being in a special place, though of course we are... The United States is a brilliant set of ideas more than it's anything else.
"War on terror" has similar problems.
Crid at March 30, 2007 1:37 PM
Leave a comment