I'm Not Afraid of Terrorists
I've been thinking about something for a long time, but I just haven't been able to figure out a way to say it correctly. It's a commentary on the public discourse these days when any dissenting view on the war brands you as a loser at best and a traitor at worst. Anyway, here goes...
After September 11, 2001, everybody was understandably shaken. It was a tragic event and there's no doubt that it shook this country to the core. Rightly, the way we look at our national security changed - we were forced to pay more attention to protecting ourselves in light of a threat that, while always there, announced itself pretty dramatically that day.
In our government's response to that, though, there was also an element of cowardice that can still be seen in evidence today. The entire republican party, with the help of an inept democratic minority, basically wet its pants in fear after September 11th and decided that what we were facing was so big, bad and scary that there's no way this country, with all of it's freedoms, could stand up to it. This country, with it's freedoms of speech and movement and our right to be secure in our posessions could never defeat the big bad terrorists. They forgot that those are the only things that distinguish us from the big bad terrorists, and they went about systematically undermining them, ironically making us more like the "enemy" we were supposedly fighting. They were so terrified, that they started acting the way scared people normally do - irrationally
At the risk of being Dixie Chicked (sometimes I like to think I'm important enough to be boycotted), isn't it time to call bullshit on this illusory "war on terror"? It is at best a completely misguided response to the risks facing Americans today and at worst a cynical ploy to manipulate us into a constant state of fear so that we will act irrationally by voting for people who clearly don't represent our interests or ideals.
Is fighting Islamic terrorists the most important priority for this nation? Of course not, and let's be honest: it's probably not in the top 5 in terms of its impact on the average American. We lost more than 3,000 of our fellow citizens on September 11th; they were innocent bystanders who never saw it coming. Since September 11th, 2001, however, we've lost more than 130,000 of our citizens to gun violence, including almost 15,000 children and teenagers. They likewise never saw it coming. More than 2 million Americans have died of cancer since then, and more than 200,000 have died on our nations roadways. If any one of us could choose whether we'd like to have our lives subject to the odds of getting shot, contracting cancer, getting in a highway accident or getting struck by terrorists, the smart money would go with the odds of being attacked by Al Qaeda.
Even within the realm of terrorism itself, we've gone to extremes against the type of terrorists that are least likely to attack us. As a citizen of the United States, you're probably more at risk from the likes of Timothy McVeigh, Dillon Kliebold, John Lee Malvo, the Unabomber or the Olympic Bomber than Al Qaeda. In fact, a war on American Terrorists would be much more "target rich" than would a war on Islamic terrorists.
So why is it that the average American believes he is at great risk of dying through an Islamic terrorist attack? Surely the graphic and dramatic way that the World Trade Center collapsed fundamentally altered the American psyche. Even more than that, though, the Bush Administration's constant drum beat, with its color codes and boots on the ground and shock and awe and Al Qaeda number 2s and decks of playing cards, is intended to hype this problem far in excess of its actual importance. They're trying to scare the crap out of us so we'll continue to act irrationally.
Well I'm not afraid of terrorism. Really I'm not. Sure I think about it when I get in a plane, but no more than I think about my risk of getting shot when I go into a bad neighborhood, or my chances of dying in a car crash when I see one on the side of the road. And while I'll be angry, sad and vengeful when the next terrorist attack hits, I want my government to weigh its response to that along with all of the other risks we face out there. That would be the couragous way to react.
After September 11, 2001, everybody was understandably shaken. It was a tragic event and there's no doubt that it shook this country to the core. Rightly, the way we look at our national security changed - we were forced to pay more attention to protecting ourselves in light of a threat that, while always there, announced itself pretty dramatically that day.
In our government's response to that, though, there was also an element of cowardice that can still be seen in evidence today. The entire republican party, with the help of an inept democratic minority, basically wet its pants in fear after September 11th and decided that what we were facing was so big, bad and scary that there's no way this country, with all of it's freedoms, could stand up to it. This country, with it's freedoms of speech and movement and our right to be secure in our posessions could never defeat the big bad terrorists. They forgot that those are the only things that distinguish us from the big bad terrorists, and they went about systematically undermining them, ironically making us more like the "enemy" we were supposedly fighting. They were so terrified, that they started acting the way scared people normally do - irrationally
At the risk of being Dixie Chicked (sometimes I like to think I'm important enough to be boycotted), isn't it time to call bullshit on this illusory "war on terror"? It is at best a completely misguided response to the risks facing Americans today and at worst a cynical ploy to manipulate us into a constant state of fear so that we will act irrationally by voting for people who clearly don't represent our interests or ideals.
Is fighting Islamic terrorists the most important priority for this nation? Of course not, and let's be honest: it's probably not in the top 5 in terms of its impact on the average American. We lost more than 3,000 of our fellow citizens on September 11th; they were innocent bystanders who never saw it coming. Since September 11th, 2001, however, we've lost more than 130,000 of our citizens to gun violence, including almost 15,000 children and teenagers. They likewise never saw it coming. More than 2 million Americans have died of cancer since then, and more than 200,000 have died on our nations roadways. If any one of us could choose whether we'd like to have our lives subject to the odds of getting shot, contracting cancer, getting in a highway accident or getting struck by terrorists, the smart money would go with the odds of being attacked by Al Qaeda.
Even within the realm of terrorism itself, we've gone to extremes against the type of terrorists that are least likely to attack us. As a citizen of the United States, you're probably more at risk from the likes of Timothy McVeigh, Dillon Kliebold, John Lee Malvo, the Unabomber or the Olympic Bomber than Al Qaeda. In fact, a war on American Terrorists would be much more "target rich" than would a war on Islamic terrorists.
So why is it that the average American believes he is at great risk of dying through an Islamic terrorist attack? Surely the graphic and dramatic way that the World Trade Center collapsed fundamentally altered the American psyche. Even more than that, though, the Bush Administration's constant drum beat, with its color codes and boots on the ground and shock and awe and Al Qaeda number 2s and decks of playing cards, is intended to hype this problem far in excess of its actual importance. They're trying to scare the crap out of us so we'll continue to act irrationally.
Well I'm not afraid of terrorism. Really I'm not. Sure I think about it when I get in a plane, but no more than I think about my risk of getting shot when I go into a bad neighborhood, or my chances of dying in a car crash when I see one on the side of the road. And while I'll be angry, sad and vengeful when the next terrorist attack hits, I want my government to weigh its response to that along with all of the other risks we face out there. That would be the couragous way to react.
posted by Bleeding Heart at
12:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home