Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiFor nearly six years now we've been hearing from politicians and pundits about how Sept. 11, 2001 "changed everything." One especially unwelcome change wrought by that day has been that, ever since, large numbers of otherwise sane and sensible people continue to utter the most ridiculous things regarding the subject of terrorism.
Consider a column last week by The Washington Post's David Ignatius. Ignatius wonders how the nation would react to a future terrorist attack. "Would the country come together to combat its adversaries," he asks, "or would it pull farther apart?"
Ignatius notes that liberals would blame the Bush administration for needlessly inflaming Muslim anti-Americanism by bungling the invasion of Iraq, while conservatives would blame liberals for weakening the nation's anti-terrorism defenses by insisting that, for example, laws requiring warrants for wiretaps and forbidding torture be obeyed.
Ignatius calls this sort of political disagreement "scary," given that "the British car bomb plots uncovered last week remind us of our vulnerability to terrorist attack, wherever we live."
"In a politically healthy nation," Ignatius intones, "the news from Britain would have a galvanizing effect. Politicians and the public would pull together and take appropriate steps to prepare for future terrorist attacks on America."
And just what would these steps include? Ignatius doesn't say! He's strongly in favor of "national unity" - but in order to do what? (All this reminds me of The Simpsons episode in which Willie Nelson invites the family to make a presentation at the New Awareness Awards. "When we heard the goal was to promote awareness," Marge says, we couldn't say no!")
When the subject is terrorism, people like Ignatius seem to have trouble grasping that political disagreement is real. Let me put it as plainly as possible: The reason Americans disagree about how to respond to the threat of terrorism is because they have radically different views on the matter.
For instance, my view is that Ignatius and his ilk have helped create a fear of terrorism out of all proportion to the actual threat terrorism poses; that by doing so they helped drag America into a disastrous war with Iraq; and that they're now helping to create the conditions that may enable an even more disastrous war with Iran.
Nothing better illustrates this than Ignatius' claim that the British car bombing plots "remind us of our vulnerability to terrorist attack." What they remind anyone not already in thrall to the cultural hysteria Ignatius promotes is that all the "terrorists" discovered in America over the past few years were, like the British would-be bombers, thoroughly pathetic figures, who collectively proved themselves incapable of blowing up a phone booth.
In the two hours or so I'm guessing it took Ignatius to crank out yet another 800 words of substance-free alarmism festooned with platitudes about the need for "unity," about 350 Americans died. Since Sept. 11, 2001, approximately 14 million Americans have died.
Some of these people died agonizing deaths on emergency room floors because they didn't have health insurance. A quarter-million were killed in car crashes. Around 200,000 were shot to death. Several thousand died of acute alcohol poisoning.
In theory, most of these deaths were preventable. In practice, only some of them were preventable at anything like a reasonable cost. Here's a question: What would be the optimal number of deaths per year in the United States caused by less-than-ideal medical care, or car crashes, or gunshot wounds, or alcohol poisoning?
I'm sure Ignatius understands why anyone who answers "zero" is saying something nonsensical. So why does he continue to write similar nonsense about terrorism?
Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. He can be reached at paul.campos@colorado.edu.
© 2007 The Rocky Mountain News
67 Comments so far
Show AllMy favorite scare line--we have to fight em there or we'll have to fight em here ! The spin here is that war against Iraq is equivalent to war against the U.S., air, land and sea, which is pretty absurd.
RE: RIGHT WING LIMITS OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE
"When the subject is terrorism, people like Ignatius seem to have trouble grasping that political disagreement is real. Let me put it as plainly as possible: The reason Americans disagree about how to respond to the threat of terrorism is because they have radically different views on the matter."
A fine critical analysis. But it needs to be taken one step further:
Ignatius has "trouble grasping that political disagreement is real"? I don't think so. The PURPOSE of Ignatius's argument is to rule out and delegitimize an opposing viewpoint without acknowleding it.
Ignatius does this twice:
First, when he argues that the polarizing effects of a US terror attack would include liberal accusations that, by bungling the Iraq invasion, the right wing increased the risk of terror. This - obviously - leaves out the OBVIOUS criticism that it was not a bungled invasion but the invasion itself that has solidified anti-American sentiment across the Middle East.
Ignatius does not simply fail to comprehend this point; he does not wish to admit it into political discussion, and, therefore, allows only the status quo-enforcing 'distractor' criticism of a supposedly bungled invasion.
Second, Ignatius seeks to eliminate political disagreement by setting up a 'bipartisan compromise' type argument - that in the face of threats from abroad, we must pull together rather than quarrel. The 'comity' is fake; the purpose, again, is to eliminate from political discourse any admission that - as Campos observes - the predicted and predictable effect of the Iraq invasion has been to strengthen anti-US forces.
Again - no accident; the purpose of Ignatius's calls for national unity is eliminate disagreement from the public sphere - in particular, to rule out fundamental criticism of the right's hideous f-up on the grounds that 'we could not afford it.'
Dear "CV"
You said "You stand a better chance of getting a winning lotto ticket blown out of your hand by lightening than of being killed by terrrrrsts."
That was so funny I nearly choked on the falafel I was eating.....kep the humor going.
Grama's quote from Thomas Jefferson
" Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"
says it all. It is now the time for all truely patriotic journalists, who still possess a soul to overcome the fear. Through fear mongering in the mass media, the average American now believes we need less freedom. It is the obligation of journalists to lead the way. Stand up for a return to the principles which have made this country great. Freedom is never free. Never forget the founding fathers, brave patriots, who stood up to the most powerful tyrant of their time. Be aware of your power. Nurture it, and most importantly, speak up now while you still can. If you only aspire to be a Matt Lauer, corporate puppet then watch silently while the liberty of your birthright slips from your grasp
In the name of all we stand for we as a nation we owe it to our posterity to have full disclosure of the facts of 9/11. The time for complacency has pass.
WE MUST DEMAND A NEW 9/11 INQUIRY
Good and honest people who still love this country can never be silenced, lest we cower in fear of what might be.
WE CANT WAIT TILL 08
IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY NOW !
Extraordinary! This is an acutely sensible discussion of the practical risks of terrorism. Thank you Professor Campos.
However, the real point of the "war on terror" is precisely fear-mongering. It is certainly not designed to protect us. Rather it is the process of defining, demonizing, and even manufacturing a new and "gruesome enemy". These enemies--"the evildoers"-- are needed to justify an immense military Empire, increasing concentrations of wealth, widespread political intimidation, and the erasure of annoying civil liberties.
David Ignatius is a highly successful "journalist" precisely because of his valuable role in inculcating the mythology of terrorism.
I believe the coup d'etat actually occurred in 2000 masquerading as the 'election'. September 11, 2001 just consolidated their power...
There is something called the MMWR -- Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that compiles all these statistics.
As for Fear, some quote for you:
YODA: Fear is the path of the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
(Then again, Palpatine outwitted Yoda by starting and waging the clone wars to create his galactic empire based on a "safe and secure society" -- hmmm... Lucas as a radical conspiracist?)
Or we can recite the Litany against Fear from Dune:
I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
A BIG problem: The public allow the calculation of risks to be made and abused by partisan politicians. (Which are then amplified by an compliant and hysterical press.)
Solution: Add basic risk assessment courses to school curicula.
Well, if anyone is still reading this and if they care, I'm convinced 9-11 was an inside job. Furthermore, I am surprised to learn that whenever there is a major terrorist attack, one can always find connections to the feds. The WTC bombing in '93 was aided and abetted by the FBI. The FBI asset, Salem, recorded the fact that the FBI gave him the bomb to set in the WTC. His connections were to have placed it near a supporting pillar in the basement but a car was illegally parked there so there was not as much structural damage as they had hoped. Now, why would the FBI give people who otherwise did not have the means this bomb? Seems like someone in the shadow government has wanted those buildings to come down for a while. Do you think I'm making this up--it was in the New York Times--goggle Salem. The audacity is that the FBI tried to lock Salem up for the crime, but his lawyer produced the tapes--ooops! If you go back and look at all the news recordings of the Oklahoma City Bombings, surprise, surprise, you will find all the initial reports showing them removing massive bombs from that building, stating that it could only be something as organized as a military that could have positioned so many huge explosives in one place. This later got reduced down to a fertilizer bomb in the driveway by the national news media. There again, government fingerprints are all over it. Conspiracies in the highest levels of government are enough to make you a conspiracy therorist.
Paul M 1:22 am
"As a reminder, one should note that the likelihood of dying in a terrorist attack in the U.S. is nearly nil, in comparison to that of perishing in a car or ordinary airplane crash."
And it is precisely those people who are most afraid of terrorists who are likely to have a gun in their home - a far, far more certain threat tho the lives of their families.
And even more ironically, Paul, it's the yahoos in the unpopulated red states that are most fearful of terrorism.
Oh, and to Mendo Chuck: 30,000 Americans are killed by gunfire every year, so 200,000 since 9/11 is right on the mark.
Did any of you read this mornings news of the terrorist that inflicted damage upon a woman and her twelve year old son in Florida?
The terrorist broke into her house and for hours repeatedly raped and sodomized the mother while brutally beating her son in another room. They forced the woman to have oral sex with her own son. The terrorists then proceeded to use chemical weapons pouring all manner of harsh houshold cleansers over the two victims, temporarily blinding the son. The terrorists then robbed the family.
This of course was in a housing project for our poor, one of those projects whose security was decreased because congress decided to eliminate $160,000 for security, per project from all the housing projects for the poor in the US. But, I can certainly understand their thinking, Americans are just going to have to make sacrafices in order for America to bring peace and security to the Iraqi people, besides there is no high tech weaponry progress or profit to be made by protecting our people in our own war on drugs.
Oh, by the way, we won the war against Sadam, but this bullshit policeing action with America in the staring role has got to stop. We are being DE-fenced,by americas
love affair with our military. All of our defences are being breeched by the lack of funding for all those government agencies that are so important to the health, welfare, and personal security of the citizens of this nation. For all the money that we are spending to make sure we are secure in our energy needs, we could afford to out spend all other nations in the direct purchase of oil. Every one knows that goods go to the highest bidder. But what is really ironic is that the cost of the fuel being spent just to keep the militaries of the world operating, are in direct compitition with the needs of the civilian population, constantly driving the price in an upward spiral.
Take the current cost of this war on terror and divide it by the total number of terrorist captured or killed to date, how much is it, a billion dollars a head?
God, what a waste and a squandering of Americas great wealth and assets which we should be useing to secure the health and welfare of our own nation, our own people.
Sorry folks, I must have gotten distracted,it could't be all this dis-information being shoved down our throats, could it? Hmm,well maybe, just a little.
Remember,keep your eyes on the prize. A-Man
LMJ
I.
Plenum, you have stated the clear truth of the matter....
However, there are many ways "to do damage to ... et al".
Having reviewed all the commentaries, all of which strengthen our resolve, please let me remind all of you, once again, wherever you may be located across our beautiful planet, that you DO NOT HAVE a "government".
You are sadly mistaken if you actually believe you are going to "vote" an honest representative into office. That office (again, wherever you are across the planet as you read this) is nothing more than window dressing and has no bearing whatsoever on the reality of the situation, which is, quite simply, the criminal tyranny of the falsely privileged few who, as you have yourselves witnessed more than once, will stop at nothing in order to maintain their elusive as well as fading control of the species and the planet.
This is obvious, for it is merely the nature of the known enemy and should in all cases be both expected and preplanned for. At all times.
Surely you are aware that we are billions of peoples across the planet, while the enemy to human brotherhood and constructive social cooperation numbers merely in the few thousands?
Please, people, how hard is this, really?
Make your choices and stop talking in circles;
-- either you continue to live the life of a wage slave dog, chained to the feudally barbaric as well as false paradigm of human interaction and social value scales being based upon possession of "tokens", or you prove that you are worthy of the title "homo supericus".
Stay the course and show some faith in yourself.
WHY, precisely, do you think these events are unfolding, in your personal life?
Because the missing link with which to galvanize constructive and healthy change...across the entire planet... is... YOU.
II.
It is neither necessary nor advisable tactics to attempt to unify across a larger geographic area, for rather chillingly obvious reasons;
Yet, you must begin to act, and act now, for the enemy is here before us and must be struck.
Locally where you are (wherever you are across the planet as you read this) is where YOUR target is.
1. Decentralized leadership
2. Local asymmetric operations
3. Deliberate disinformation to the enemy locally
4. Suppression of enemy leadership & senior cadre
5. Disabling of enemy assets wherever found
We can chat later, when we have regained control of the communications network across the planet.
Until then, by all means send millions of staged and entirely bogus "plans"...all the time.
See how that works?
Surely you don´t REALLY believe that the Neanderthals could have won out against such as we,... do you?
There is your answer and understand that this is our strength.
W.hole E.arth E.quality P.arty... coming sooner than you think.
Okay... Here's a recomendation for something to do to occupy your time till you figure out what to really do...
'It's been said' that you should TURN OFF YOUR COMPUTER AND GO DO SOME DAMAGE TO ANYTHING THAT HAS AN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE LOGO ON IT.
I really wish the Democrats would call out the supposed party of "fiscal responsibility" and "good common sense" with a simple question: is it worth it?
When you look at the extraordinary amount of money wasted on the War on Terror, don't you ask yourself what on Earth could possibly justify it, and make what we're getting in return seem like a good deal?
Why does this issue have to be all emotion, and no rationality? Even if you think the War on Terror is a great idea, there are STILL some serious questions that need to be asked!
1) We've spent $____ on our efforts. Are the ____ genuine terrorists we've caught and the _____ deadly weapons of chaos and destruction we've stopped worth the cost?
2) Are we making any progress? That is, if we're actually accomplishing anything, wouldn't it stand to reason that we can start spending less than the $_____ we originally budgeted the year we began this effort? That is shouldn't ____ fewer bad guys, _____ of thwarted plans, _____ tons of captured weapons, etc. amount to reduced terrorist capabilities? Wouldn't this, in turn, amount to a reduced terrorist threat and a reduced need for the scope and scale of anti-terrorism measure we're taking?
Thank God for State Secrets, right? The efforts our government takes to protect us from nasty terrorists also conveniently protects them from any accountability for how successful (or lacking in success) these efforts may be. Even if we win, we lose. Do you honestly trust the corrupt guys in charge to fess up when they no longer need the money we've appropriated for this epic exercise in futility?
EveningLand,
Let's not forget that Zbigniew Brzezinski' was also the architect of the "green belt", meaning if the Soviets were surrounded by Muslim countries, i.e. a green belt, they would be stopped in their own sphere of influence. But it now looks like his green belt is around the neck of the U.S. instead.
The "threat of terrorism" is half sham and half scam.
About the only way the flim-flammers can show such a threat is to re-define "terrorism" to include jaywalking on the President's birthday and farting during the national anthem.
That, plus labeling other crimes (such as the WTC bombing) "terrorist" before any investigation reveals the motive, means and opportunity of anybody.
But it's glamorous. Diverts attention from REAL problems we have, and relieves us, thereby, of any responsibility to DO anything about them, while blaming somebody else for all our woes.
It's just the kind of lie some people love to be told, and so believe it determinedly.
But it's so thin, I'm amazed anyone with an IQ bigger than his shoe size could fall for it.
SJ
www.spartacusjones.com
Mendo Chuck: the figures are actually pretty accurate. If you go to the CDC website (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html) you'll find there were 119,520 firearm-related deaths in the US between 2001 and 2004. If you extrapolate that from September 11, 2001 until today's date, that works out to approximately 172,000 Americans shot to death (by homicide, suicide and accident) since 9/11 (not allowing for a larger population and any variance in gun death rates since 2004). If you count American soldiers killed by gunfire in Afghanistan and Iraq the number is probably closer to 175,000. "Around 200,000" may be vague, but it's fairly accurate.
According to the US Dept. of Transportation (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/), 214,364 Americans were killed in car crashes between 2001-2005. Again, that works out to about 247,805 since 9/11 (very nearly "a quarter-million").
An National Institutes of Health study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uid...) estimated 1,393 annual alcohol poisoning deaths in the United States in the years 1996-1998, or about 8,052 ("several thousand") since 9/11.
That "some of these [nearly 13.9 million, extrapolated from CDC figures] people died... because they didn't have health insurance" is I think undeniable. The number is 18,000 per year according to a 2004 study by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine (cited by Michael Moore in "SiCKO"; see http://www.iom.edu/?id=19175); that's about 104,040 since 9/11. The study didn't attempt to estimate exactly how many died "agonizing deaths on emergency room floors" because of their lack of insurance.
To put this all into perspective, 2,974 people died on 9/11. A little over 3,200 American civilians have ever died in terrorist attacks (about 92% of them in a single day). That's about 0.8% as many Americans who have been killed by firearms, car crashes, lack of health insurance and alcohol poisoning combined just since 9/11; or about 40% as many who were killed by alcohol poisoning alone in the same time period. Something to think about perhaps.
I just finished reading Fidel Castro's latest musings [July 7, '07, in La Prensa which is a pretty good source for Latin American news]
Anyway, he was discussing some of the more notorious and flagrant attempts on his life by the US between 1959 thru 1993. Said he cannot address the later years since then, as he lacks all the data.
627 attempts! Sure, that is 25 years, and approx 25 tries a year. Now, if you want to discuss terrorism, it behooves our government to come clean before it goes off blowing up every country it sets its sights on.
The more I read about Fidel, btw, the more I admire him. I wonder if his nationalizing US properties in 1959 was a successful attempt to get rid of the counter-revolutionaries. It was certainly effective for that. If all those Cuban patriots had stayed in Cuba and formed a 5th column, Castro would have gone the way of Patrice Lamumba in a hurry.
I realize this is borderline off-topic, except for the general theme of state sponsored terror. But, Castro has been publishing a series of thoughts and reminiscences for the past couple of months, and even Common Dreams has failed to publish them.
627 attempts at murder - It'd kind of make you skitchy and unfriendly, wouldn't it?
"As a reminder, one should note that the likelihood of dying in a terrorist attack in the U.S. is nearly nil, in comparison to that of perishing in a car or ordinary airplane crash."
And it is precisely those people who are most afraid of terrorists who are likely to have a gun in their home - a far, far more certain threat tho the lives of their families.
It's irrationality on the loose. It's the reptilian brain.
The War On Terror is The War of Terror.
If you doubt the point made above by, I think, Economic Truck, Jaded Prole, clyde paige, Fed Up, and cruxpuppy, that the 9/11 attacks were at least allowed to happen by BushCo in order to supply the new Pearl Harbor needed to manipulate the U.S. citizenry into consenting to war without assignable end, and to the abuse of the Constitution by the establishment of a "unitary executive," i.e., that 9/11 was a coup d'état, then you may want to consider this quotation from Zbigniew Brzezinski's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 1st of this year (Brzezinski was President Carter's National Security Advisor): "A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist attack in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a 'defensive' U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan."
We know that Brzezinski is no choir boy; after all, he may well have set the trap into which the Soviet Union fell with its invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.
I'm not necessarily for Edwards (prefer Kucinich) but when he said the "War on Terrorism is a bumper sticker" (for which he was much criticized) he was right-on.
Terrorism and our "War" with it are meant to incite and rally people. It is completely hyped up in order to motivate us against our enemy (radical islam). The ulterior motives for this hype are easy to understand -- Those folks are sitting on alot of oil fields.
Our countrymen's lives are taken by other means which we collectively never examine (as mentioned in the other readers' comments, e.g., car crashes, avoidable health crises, and gun violence, or should I say, "people who kill people" with gun violence using wording preferred by the NRA). We should be pursuing all strategies available to reduce these needless deaths.
The War on Terror is a hyped-up total BS reason for anything. It's up there with the War on Drugs. It is a plan to manipulate public opinion, purely and simply. Bush scraped by in 2004 because of the public's manipulated need to have the C.in C. stay at the helm and fight this "war". Need more be said?
The Washington Post is pathetic (from a Washingtonian). Their Op Ed staff should have retired a long time ago. They are all seriously myopic.
As the gap between rich an poor widen, we are divided in this country, objectively.
Don't fall for this "we are all in this together" bull. As people who are underemployed, unemployed, or working for a paycheck. Our interests are not the same as the people making billions of dollars running the world.
They need terrorist, they need the democratic party, they need to keep us, the working class, thinking we need them to survive. The truth is the opposite. They are killing us. In the work place, on the battle field, in the hospitals, etc. We have independent interest, and they can't give us what we need to survive and still make maximum profit.
We need to build a new party that represents our interest as workers.
The US Social Forum held in Atlanta recently was a good starting point. Please check it out, where people are actually doing something to help build a new world.
On the Fear in the United States
On 9/11, I was at my place of work, in Manhattan, as usual. We continued working even after we learned that airplanes had been crashed into the towers and after the towers collapsed. Although I was concerned to leave the building I was in, which I did as soon as circumstances permitted, I was not afraid. Nor have I been afraid or fearful since. The anthrax threat, the alleged terrorist alerts, and all the terror hysteria have failed to impress me. Why is it, then, that inhabitants of this country who live states away from here, would be more fearful than New Yorkers? (I am, of course, assuming that New York City is a much more likely target than most places in the United States.) Here are the folks of "the greatest country on Earth," the one that God blesses a million times a day, the one with the biggest military budget on our sorrowful Earth -- a budget, incidentally, as large as the aggregate military budgets of all other nations -- and they are trembling with fear. It leaves one wondering how such a peculiar phenomenon could arise, what its causes might be. Why are the people of the United States so fear prone, so susceptible to that emotion?
Eight years elapsed between the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center Towers and the 9/11 attacks, and presumably those were years during which the country was far less on its guards than it has been since the eleventh. On probabilistic grounds alone, then, the likelihood of a sizeable terrorist strike within the United States is infinitely small. As a reminder, one should note that the likelihood of dying in a terrorist attack in the U.S. is nearly nil, in comparison to that of perishing in a car or ordinary airplane crash. Although thousands of U.S. citizens die in car accidents every year, a tiny minority among us trembles with fear at the sight of cars or at the thought of having to travel to some destination by car, and we advise such people to seek therapeutic help.
With these reminders, I have yet evoked neither the thousands among us who die each year owing to firearm violence, nor the fact that United States territory has literally been attacked by foreign armies once or twice since the inception of the nation. (It is true that we are somewhat more afraid of guns than of cars, particularly when they are being pointed at us, but not sufficiently to ban them from everyday life and to legislate their sale and use very stringently.)
Regarding the mountain of dead people caused by firearm violence in our civil society, take a look at this citation from Bob Herbert's article "Hooked on Violence," New York Times, April 26, 2007: "...since the murders of Robert Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968, well over a million Americans have been killed by firearms in the United States. That's MORE THAN THE COMBINED U.S. COMBAT DEATHS IN ALL THE WARS IN ALL OF AMERICAN HISTORY" (emphasis mine).
Might there be a low-level civil war going on in our midst? Might that relentless violence have anything to do with the average American's susceptibility to fear?
Why is it that probability theory is not being applied to the possible occurrence of terrorist strikes on U.S. soil? We do use it to assess the possibility of occurrence of many other phenomena. Is the possibility of terrorist strikes the exclusive object of concern of irrational religious and political sentiments?
Why is it that a nation that prides itself on being enlightened by the legal and political acquisitions of its revolution and its numerous scientific and technical achievements, and whose leaders seldom miss an opportunity to blame other nations for resisting modernization (these days, this reproach is primarily directed at Islamic societies, as we know), shows itself incapable of being rational in the face of the attacks of 9/11 and their aftermath? The Irish, the British, and the Spanish peoples, to take just a few examples, have had to deal with terrorism for decades, yet they retained their ability to be rational agents in the political arena.
Dominik Jenkins's book "The Final Frontier. America, Science, and Terror" (Verso, 2002) documents the way in which the triad formed by science, technology, and economy has been shaping the United States' military since about 1878 by gradually transforming the armed forces into a piece of the triad, a process which gives us what, borrowing a phrase from President Eisenhower, we might call the military-industrial-university complex.
Jenkins shows that the integration of the military into the triad has not left the constitutional structure of the United States unaltered, for the increasing presence of military affairs and military power within government and ever greater sectors of the triad inevitably erodes the separation of powers, pulling as they do the executive and portions of the legislative to their side. That is why Eisenhower, in fact, used the phrase 'industrial-military-Congressional complex', as we now know from his posthumously revealed writings, the adjective 'Congressional' having been suppressed during his lifetime. The erosion of the three powers in turn has blunted the plight of the citizenry for democratic participation and made it into a politically immature population.
As far as the United States' relation to other nations is concerned, the erosion of the constitutional structure has distorted the democracy into an imperial democracy, serving primarily the interests of an elite of highly placed military functionaries, industrialists and business people, and scientists. It is the serving of these interests that has led to most of the United States' military interventions.
Jenkins unearthed many texts to document this transformation, some quite stunning. He displays the role that fear plays in the integration of the military into the triad and its impact upon the constitutional institutions. He shows how the ruling elite made use of fear as an instrument of intimidation and coercion, that in the brutal politics that American politics has been for so long, fear is first and foremost an instrument used to accomplish certain political, economic, military effects or ends. As evidenced by the following quotation, the use of fear as a means of social control and regimentation of the populace was very well understood by Hermann Goering, the chief of Adolf Hitler's secret police (the Gestapo):
"Why of course the people don't want war... That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
"Fear is the great motivating influence in most American's lives."
In other words: the besetting vice of Americans is no longer Greed (so 80's!), or Sloth and Gluttony, but Cowardice.
Which explains Abu Ghraib and all the rest. Without Courage, Honour is impossible. Honour is precisely to take the risk that one's foe will also behave with honour.
Basic common sense from the professor who rightfully outraged by the lack of common sense in those who lead and influence public opinion.
But we live in apocalyptic times, what Christians of apocalyptic orientation call the "end times". How many copies of the "left behind" series of books by Tim La Haye and Jerry B Jenkins have been released like anthrax spores in the population? 62 million?
This is an excellant theological foundation for paranoid politics as practised by Bush and the Neocons. In Israel, which must gird up its loins every blessed day because it has so antagonized its neighbors that it can never take its own existence for granted, this unrelenting paranoia is justified. The Israeli really do have something to be afraid of, and insofar as the US colludes with them to perpetrate injustice against the Arabs, then the US has something legitimate to fear from Arab terrorism. It is called "blowback", a concept foreign to the mind of those who preach the war on terror.
But these supporters of the "long war" are not worried to distraction by rational considerations. They have lost their common sense and have become completely irrational. If they were truly worried about a nuclear bomb falling into the hands of terrorists, the rational response would be a determined full court press for nuclear disarmament.
Jimmy Carter, who understands the religious mind because he has one of his own, has warned that these end times fanatics really believe what they are saying. There is a final battle acoming and Jesus will return to initiate his Thousand Year Christian Reich. The future belongs to the true believers.
And whether or not supporters of the war on terror read and believe the "left behind" fantasies, or whether they are professing Christians or not, they are nonetheless drawn into the apocalyptic hysteria, even if they don't acknowledge it as apocalyptic. One does not have to embrace Chstian eschatology to support the war on terror.
One need only be a dedicated military careerist and look at the world through a gun sight.
Fascism is a political view that cannot survive in a liberal cultural environment. It is incompatible with peaceful co-existence. Martial virtues are its highest values and war is its highest achievement. Fascism requires the stark simplicity of a cosmic battle between Good & Evil by which to measure all things.
Fascism and Christian apocalyptism are a good fit. The relentless attack on liberal culture and liberal values such as those embedded in the Constitution in the name of this war on terror, is a fascist inspired assault, a prescursor of a social transformation achieved by means of the politics of paranoia. The politics derived from the Book of Revelation.
The most peculiar aspect of fascist paranoid politics is that it tends to provoke conflict in the name of the ultimate resolution of all conflict, the Ultimate Victory of Good over Evil.
911 was an act of political terror perpetrated by those who wished to launch a war on terror.
To understand David Ignatius, Professor Campos needs to step outside his pragmatic, common sense views of terrorism, and get into the apocalyptic frame of mind. That is the weakness of liberalism. It tends to be too rational. It cannot inhabit the mind of a fanatic. If Professor Campos could do that, he would understand David Ignatius better. He would also understand that terrorism from within our government is the greatest terrorist threat.
He would tremble with every announcment by officials and their media lackeys about the imminent threat terrorism poses because he would understand that this is little more than a gangster selling a protection racket. If you don't buy my war on terror, the cryptofascist officials say, you will certainly be victimized by it.
This is why Bush/Cheney should be impeached, the 911 investigation reopened, and every individual who failed to prevent that act of terror be summarily removed from any position of influence now or in the future.
We don't have a future as a Republic otherwise.
Not surprising - people and the media whip up fear on stuff that rarely happens. Years ago the group that most feared homicide by strangers were old ladies in nursing homes the group least likely to be killed by strangers. Least afraid were young black males - the group that is most likely to be killed by a stranger.
Terrorism is a very ineffective way to kill people, lots of booze, drugs, tobacco, and no health care are much more effective.
jp think about what you be saying..
was stopped rolling into heathrow in '74
brit missile was missing
ira maybe..
fuck-em i'm flying
knew at 27
security is an illusion..
take off was fun
tanks and all
circling the perimeter
take off your shoes
never, never never never
was in an airport 2 yrs past
smelled like fear
ken
An interesting snippet in my morning paper - in the side-bar about interesting quotes. No source was given other then "Interpol". Seems the unnamed spokesperson was complaining that not one fingerprint of the suspected terrorists in Britain had been sent to Interpol.
Since it as unsourced, and not expanded upon, I was left to conclude that at least some people in Interpol wonder just how serious this terrorist threat is/was
The Post is mostly trash, online they're annoying. Ignatius is a keyboard monkey performing for his fan base. In the 70s, the printing presses were gutted and dismantled by unhappy Post employees, in an aggressive statement against da' man. Too bad we can't see a similar protest launched from within the Post's IT department. Things are a bit more complicated now, and anything that prevents George Will's editorial from making it to the masses is an act of terrorism. The Post is led by terrorists, barely a peep when Dipshit attacked Iraq.
I think it is a mistake to try to dilute the fear elicited by terrorism by comparing its lethality to that of traffic accidents, deaths due to a profit-driven health care system, guns, etc. The nature of terrorism is to terrorize, so that lethality is intentional, its perpetrators are hidden or faceless, often living within the enemy population, and its intended targets are the "innocent" victims whose government's policies have put them at risk. Although the leaders of a country are the ones who make the decisions that result in the blowback of terrorism, it is the general populace, the "innocents," who are terrorized and victimized by it.
Another important aspect of terrorism is that it creates the kind of generalized fear of the "enemy within" that has helped to animate the anti-immigration movement, the anti-gay movement, the anti-feminist movement, and any other movement that threatens to problematize fixed notions of identity. Borders of identity become more fixed as people try to regain their sense of control.
These issues may be beside the point of the article, but I think that we have to try to understand some of the dynamics of terrorism if we are to make any headway against the deliberate manipulation of the fear it creates and how that fear is manifested.
The deaths of 14 million or so since 9/11 can't be exploited for profit. In fact, these statistics must be swept under the rug so as not to upset the gun, oil, auto, health care, etc industries contributing to the needless deaths. However, the 3,000 who died as a result of the attacks on 9/11 represent the best opportunity for profit, political and financial, since Pearl Harbor. Why the surprise that this is what's actually happening? It's the American way.
obl has been very kind to the folks of the us
the past couple of yrs..
(3 bucks worth of gasoline and a buck bic
will shut the entire west of the country down)!
I wonder why?
ken
Ok Mr Paul Campos . . . .
Where did these figures come from . . .
"Some of these people died agonizing deaths on emergency room floors because they didn't have health insurance. A quarter-million were killed in car crashes. Around 200,000 were shot to death. Several thousand died of acute alcohol poisoning."
Give me a break . . . How can we expect to get anywhere when these kind of figures get thrown around . . .
Don't get me wrong . . . These problems are real. Just as real as any, but these kinds of assessments are not going to help.
When we start facing REAL problems with REAL solutions then maybe we can find the middle ground but this kind of BS won't get it.
"Around 200,000 were shot to death." . . . Give me a break.
Not One More - Here's another quote for your collection:
'Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.' - Thomas Jefferson.
I don't disagree with any of the previous comments, they all have validity. However, one thing that hasn't been said, theoretically; in a Democracy, voters have the opportunity to "throw the rascals out" come every election. However, we reelect incumbents most of the time and in spite of repeated failures by both political parties, we continue to support them. Independents run and almost always loose.
Two thoughts come to mind; one, the typical American voter is an idiot who is heavily propagandized and lacks the requisite intellectual skills to understand his/her situation. And/or two, the system has been so completely hijacked by Corporations and the very wealthy that our democracy is no more than a sham. Do you have any better explanation?
Some quotes:
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -- John F. Kennedy
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." -- Barry Goldwater (actually written by Karl Hess)
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Theodore Roosevelt
So really, people have recognized through time what the problem is (I could have thrown in a couple of Greek quotes as well), and what is causing it. Now we have to determine whether we want to put our complete effort and commitment in changing the current status quo which benefit the few at the expense of the many. Unfortunately, the mainstream polictical parties (democrat and republican) are more concerned with maintaining the status quo which favors millionaires, after all many of our elected officials are millionaires. Big surprise.
peace, justice, and Human Rights for all.
www.NotOneMore.US - The Pledge for Peace
In college the guys on athletic scholarships had jobs. One was keeping the alligators out of the gym. The standing joke was the good job that was being done since none were ever seen. Conservative pundits are serious when, defending Bush's spying, torture, lying, warmongering,etc etc, they say "Has there been another attack?"
You don't have to be stupid to be conservative but it helps.
Well, perhaps somebody with a better memory or more education can correct me, but I recall reading decades ago from one of those dead guys--maybe Plato--to paraphrase: that the business of government was to scare the masses and turn their hate and fear onto another 'enemy' (often invented or hyped, think Hitler and the Jews for one) so that the 'sheeple' wouldn't realize the TRUE enemy of the people was their own government.
It was true 2000 years ago, and it's still true, in spades now. It's gone beyond simple misdirection, now they're even making very real enemies on purpose of people who presented no threat to us just to have a way to control us--perpetual war, perpetual fear.
To Fed Up:
I believe Building 7 fell by planned demolition. At least that's what Larry Silverstein, the owner, said on PBS. I think you can watch the direct quote on "Loose Change the 2nd Edition" or "Zeitgeist: The Movie" which is also on Google I think.
Of course, I'll bet you already know all this, right??
Here are my two bits:
ALL the bombs are in the hands of terrorists!
Vern,
One of the favorite books among extreme right-wingers is titled "The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing". Many of them strongly believe Islamic terrorists were really behind the Oklahoma City terrorist attack, and believe the mainstream "liberal" media continues to cover it up.
What's that line? One who calls another a terrorist is the terrorist trying to cover their tracks. The way to keep people guessing is to prey on their fears and keep reinforcing the same old story.
And the more we keep spinning our wheels and play the blame game, the more it keeps happening. Terrorists today will be the same thing named something else in the future as it was in the past.
While were on the subject of Sept 11. How'd bldg 7 fall again???
All roads lead to Sept 11.......
Doesn't anyone care to remember that it was the CIA who gave America 9/11? Never mind that America built, armed, financed, and trained Osama and his ilk for decades !
They crank it up and then some time in a small article in the back of the paper it will suggest it was all much ado about nothing.
Of course no one ever mentions Oklahoma City anymore, but that was a Right-wing Gulf war vet, not an Arab whose country has oil or that Israel wants to rattle the sabre at.
The main thing that America has to fear are the real terrorist George Bush and Dick Cheney plus the MSM
Let's see now, the three british "car bombs" burned two of the perpetrators and one car. That not much more damage than a vice-president can do with a shotgun.
Be afraid, be VERY afraid! ! ! ! !
Excellent example of the "availability heuristic". What this means is that people's minds inflate the significance of certain events due to powerful images, words, and propaganda and not due to actual facts, and statistics.
This is why many people who have a fear of flying drive cars, even though statistics demonstrate they are far more likely to die in a car accident than a plane accident(or terrorist incident).
The horrific events of september 11th were a terrible crime, and the perpetrators should have been dealt with. A reasonable level of heightened security afterward would have been all that was necessary. Instead this has been used by the criminals in the White House to justify imperialist actions that actually raise the risk of terrorism(another attack would almost certainly lead to an attack on Syria or Iran, or some other country; regardless, Pakistan may soon fall to the fundamentalist wackos, leading to a war with India, and maybe something similar to the Iran-Iraq war). It is a very disturbing vicious cycle, which pleases both the American war criminals, and the foreign terrorists. How anyone cannot understand this is beyond me.
The basic assumption that the Bush-Cheney criminal gang wants the people of the US and the world to swallow is that they are operating on utilitarian principles -- trying to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number, primarily in the US, but also in the rest of the world to a reasonable extent.
Most people who comment at Common Dreams know this is laughable. There is not even a serious effort to convince anyone who has even the slightest degree of awareness that this is true. We know the Bush administration has become a pure criminal conspiracy, a complete fraud, offering nothing but disinformation to enable corruption and cronyism at unprecedented levels. And we know the people of the US need to escape this hall of mirrors before they can even begin to discuss serious policy options with regard to terrorism or other aspects of foreign policy. Yet we also know the corporate media is entirely complicit in the conspiracy, and sets up new mirrors for each old one that is smashed.
While terrorism has not caused nearly the harm of irresponsible insurance companies, tobacco companies, chemical companies, arms manufacturers, or a host of other US commerical enterprises, in the age of nuclear weapons the potential harm is unbounded in scope and so it should be considered seriously. However, since terrorism is caused by blowback from imperialistic foreign policy, the proper remedial policies would involve ending such imperialistic activities and engaging in law enforcement investigations, not furthering imperialistic aims and abuses.
I find it very ironic that when I was a kid, their was a toy with it's own cartoon called G.I. Joe. And G.I. Joe had a nemesis called COBRA. And G.I. Joe would fight and defeat COBRA every episode without ever catching Cobra Commander. And here we are 20+ years later and life is imitating a cartoon.
It is in the interest of mainstream media to present 'news' that sells advertizing while supporting the source of advertizing which happens to be large corporations.
How does it sell 'news'? Be presenting it in a sensational manner, and making a big deal of non-news stories (anything about Paris Hilton, while maybe a personal tragedy, should not be front page news).
Mainstream media should be the watchdog, that challenges incorrect facts or misleading statements.
But it instead acts as a lapdog, in bed with with the very entities that it should be guarding the public against- corrupt government and unscrupulous corporations.
so it goes
www.NotOneMore.US/staythecourse.htm - a humourous look at how our president makes decisions
www.NotOneMore.US - Take the Pledge for Peace
lol
thats, a very poignant observation BlackStacey.
Damn
"...Ignatius and his ilk have helped create a fear of terrorism out of all proportion to the actual threat terrorism poses; that by doing so they helped drag America into a disastrous war with Iraq; and that they're now helping to create the conditions that may enable an even more disastrous war with Iran."
'
Terrrrrrsm, from a statistical standpoint doesn't exist. It's all hype. Whether Cheney ordered the hit on 9/11 or not, there were more people killed that month by gunfire in this country than died that morning. You stand a better chance of getting a winning lotto ticket blown out of your hand by lightening than of being killed by terrrrrsts. Be Brave.
the problem with common sense is that its not that common
So we have common dreams, and wwe can see that there are others in the world on the same wave length as us. now hat the fuck are we going to do about it?
Where would Bush&Co be today if it weren't for bin Laden & Company?
And if the Supreme Court continues down its current path, abortion will be illegal so thousands of women will die each year due to the abortions done the pre "Roe vs Wade" way. Oh yeah, forgot women aren't people again...........
Ignatius' whole argument is moot because he starts from a totally false premise: America is only "divided" in the minds of so-called journalists and reporters and such, but according to ALL polls, there is massive unity on every important subject, from the environment to education to Iraq and the "war on terror." Hell, most of us even agree that the government needs to get out of a woman's womb and the researcher's petri dish and the torture business.
But since the basis of "storytelling" is "conflict," the truth about how united Americans really are isn't told, because it lacks "drama." Black v White sells better than "80% agree we must stop the Earth from melting."
Best example: is there any question that the majority of Americans are repulsed by the obscenely expanding "wealth gap?" Think that one polls 50-50? How about universal health care for children (at least)? Half of us oppose that one, do we? The list is long...
We're more united than the government, our one Party sub-branches, or our corporate-leashed media wants us to believe, for the most basic of reasons: THERE IS POWER IN NUMBERS. And they do not want us to remember this.
A lot of people did not run out an buy duct tape after 9/11 and a lot of people do not wish for many of the restrictions on our freedoms in the name of 'terrorism.' A lot of people do not watch FOX news as it is too silly for words. A little bit of common sense goes a long way in whether or not you are scared out of your wits over 'terrorism.' To level the playing field it would be fair to wire tap the White House and have all calls broadcast direct to FOX. Sort of a live 'Big Brother' show. Their ratings would sky rocket.
When people and pundits in western media write or talk about terrorism, they seem to develop myopia. Their discussion of terrorism is very limited and invariably centers on car bombs, firebombs, and suicide bombings. Look at how much noise they have generated about the doctors who took part in the firebombing in England that didn't even kill anyone.
These people hypocritically never talk about the real big terrorists whose repeated crimes, both past and present, have given rise to retaliation. The real terrorists, unlike the doctors who only attempted to fire bomb, have in the past, and are currently, terrorizing and killing innocent civilians by large numbers in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The real criminals and terrorists such as Israel, European countries, and America need to be mentioned and exposed. While these people may describe a car laden with gasoline as a horrific bombing, they never mention the real terrorist actions perpetrated by Israel, America, Britain, et al, some better known as the coalition of the killing. If one wants to see the real terrorists in action, one has to go to Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Let's not forget that the Shock and Awe that terrorized masses of innocent people in the middle of night was not a garden party.
Great commentary. With so much information, as well as misinformation, coming at us all the time, it's hard to consolidate this kind of thinking into concise, understandable rhetoric. It's been obvious for some time that many other ills, misfortunes, and disasters pose a greater danger to America and all humankind than terrorism. Statistically at least, terrorism is far down the scale of problems that must be addressed.
Much lunacy has been instigated by the fear of terrorism, from the silly "emergency alert" colors to the notion that the greatest threat to civilization is the takeover of Europe by Islam by the year 2020. (This latter was told to me by a good friend whose wingnut inclinations I try to mostly ignore since he's such a nice guy othewise. I think he gets these loony ideas from talk radio and Fox TV.)
In the meantime, people die from lack of health care, drive-by shootings and other gun deaths occur daily, the elderly lose their life savings in order to pay for dental work or unexpected bills, children suffer from malnutrition, and a multitude of societal ailments go uncorrected. And we continue to spend in the neighborhood of $3,000 per second in Iraq. That's $180,000 per minute. It's incredible that the fearmongers have been so able to blind so many for so long.
Thanks to Paul Campos for putting all of this into perspective.
@ Nietzsche
Or as H.L. Mencken observed "Not all conservatives are stupid, but all stupid people are conservative."
Mr. Economics Truck.
Yeah they lied about a lot of shit. Thats to be expected from governments, thats what they do.
google video - adam curtis - the power of nightmares
The real terrorists are the fear-mongers in government and the media, including Ignatius, who profit from mass paranoia. Scare people into believing they're in danger, whether from Arabs or from odor-causing bacteria, and you can sell them a lot of stuff they don't need.
Thank you Economics Truck!
The neocon actions create hatred of us beyond what we could ever counter militarily. It is a policy intended to create a permanent state of war and fear in order to quash any opposition to thier absolute rule. Bush/Cheney and the neocons are by definition "The Terrorists." There is no future but feudal slavery and destruction on the neocon plan. It must be rooted out and reversed.
"What they remind anyone not already in thrall to the cultural hysteria Ignatius promotes is that all the "terrorists" discovered in America over the past few years were, like the British would-be bombers, thoroughly pathetic figures, who collectively proved themselves incapable of blowing up a phone booth.
Where the hell could they find a phone booth, much less blow one up?
Grumpy Lion
Fear is the great motivating influence in most American's lives.
Buy "this" to protect yourself, home, family, nation.
The fear of losing something you never had is a primary sales tool. We have all had a salesperson tell us we had better git "it " now or "it" might not be here tomorrow.
Snake oil.