Monday, August 09, 2004
Terrorism, 9/11, and America, Part 1
In the days leading up to 9/11, the news outlets were covering two stories that I thought reflected the best and the worst about humanity and America. You know what I am talking about: Stem cell research and the Chandra Levy/Gary Condit scandal.
Stem cell research (and in general scientific research) has been one of my hot-button issues since it started being hot in 2000. I think what humanity's greatest promise is its quest for knowledge and exploration. Stem cell research offered an incredible frontier to explore for science, and Bush promptly shut it down in the fear of playing god. What better way to go into the future than to let everyone else explore the field, and to have us grounded on the tarmac? And I don't even need to comment on the Chandra Levy case. Total fluff, is all I'll say.
After 9/11, it seemed like the news outlets had somehow matured- almost as if they knew there were bigger things at work in the world than an intern sleeping with a congressman (and then being murdered). It was almost a relief, then, to turn on the TV and see real news that you cared about. And the news outlets knew this. You can't even turn on the TV today and not see something about 9/11. It's important, no doubt. But they forgot all about stem cell research. Well, they forgot about damn near everything. South America could have sunk into the ocean, and it probably would have scrolled past on the ticker line.
The news has always been guilty of using hyperbole and scare tactics to make a huge deal out of something that doesn't matter. And with 9/11, they used the same strategy to make a world-changing deal out of something that DID matter.
Basically what I am complaining about here, is that 9/11 was big news. It showed a serious lack of communication in our intelligence agencies; it showed that the US was now part of the global problem that is/was terrorism; and it showed that the terrorists are well organized, well funded, and that it is really hard to stop someone that is willing to die for their cause.
But the news media implicated everyone. The airlines, the airports, immigration, Arabs, Jews, Iraqis, the Clinton administration, the Bush administration, Al Gore, Anand Shah, to name just a few. 9/11 was a huge mistake on someone's part, and there was enough blame to go around. It might have been nicer to blame one person and have that person be fired/executed. But there were lapses all around, and most people can admit this.
But because everyone was so hyped about this, and we were so terrified that something like this could happen again that we passed laws like the Patriot Act, we cracked down on visas for everyone, instituted racist screening and profiling processes, made our embassies into fortresses, and divided our country with a jingoist feeling that made every immigrant feel the need to plaster flags to prove that they, too, loved this place we call America.
But is terrorism any more of a problem than it was pre 9/11? Is it any less of a problem? In 1998, the US fired 72 cruise missiles at possible hiding places of Osama Bin Laden, in an attempt to kill him before he caused any more harm. He was already on the list of most wanted people in the world, and had a huge bounty on his head. It's not like we thought we were invincible. The World Trade bombings in 1993 escaped noticed because only a few people died. Basically, the terrorists screwed up. Given 8 years and a second chance, they didn't screw up the second time. So why were we so blind that time, and why do we purport to be so aware now?
Let's suppose that Bin Laden had instead engineered a series of smaller incidents to be performed over a few years rather than one huge incident, and then nothing for the next 3 years. Would we be in Iraq? Would we have 'liberated' Afghanistan? Would there be a color-coded terror alert? Would we have passed legislation like the Patriot Act? Would people be basing this entire election on terrorism?
I don't know the answers to these questions. But I think that because 9/11 was such a HUGE story, we all jumped the gun on terrorism. It has become the defining force of Bush's administration, and it reeks of a communist witchhunt to me. Had we been eased into being a terrorist target, I think Americans would have accepted terrorism as a fact of life, just like they have accepted murder, rape, robbery, car accidents, drunk driving, corporate scandals, government corruption, lying, deceit, and god.
Because that is what we all need to do. Accept it, and live with it. We can't stop all terrorism, just like we can't stop all theft. Yes, we COULD lock everyone in their houses, behind steel doors and electric fences, and that would probably be semi-effective. But why would you want to live in a house like that? As corny as it sounds, you can't take away what makes this country a nice place to live all in the name of making it a safe place to live.
In the end, we aren't any safer from terrorists than we were pre-9/11. And we really aren't in any more danger, either. Because like everything else in the world, we are shielded by our anonymity, and in the safety of numbers. So just go on living your lives; because you already are. Almost no one in this country outside of New York had to deal with the consequences of terrorism, and even those people aren't any more pitiable than survivors of other tragedies like murder and natural disasters.
I am not suggesting that we give up on the 'war on terrorism'. Yes, we need to secure our country, but we can't spend all our resources on it. Believe it or not, there are more important things in the future, and you can't go into the future if you're always looking over your shoulder in paranoia.
So don't think about terrorism. Turn off the TV, the radio, and close the newspaper. What you don't know almost certainly won't hurt you.
Stem cell research (and in general scientific research) has been one of my hot-button issues since it started being hot in 2000. I think what humanity's greatest promise is its quest for knowledge and exploration. Stem cell research offered an incredible frontier to explore for science, and Bush promptly shut it down in the fear of playing god. What better way to go into the future than to let everyone else explore the field, and to have us grounded on the tarmac? And I don't even need to comment on the Chandra Levy case. Total fluff, is all I'll say.
After 9/11, it seemed like the news outlets had somehow matured- almost as if they knew there were bigger things at work in the world than an intern sleeping with a congressman (and then being murdered). It was almost a relief, then, to turn on the TV and see real news that you cared about. And the news outlets knew this. You can't even turn on the TV today and not see something about 9/11. It's important, no doubt. But they forgot all about stem cell research. Well, they forgot about damn near everything. South America could have sunk into the ocean, and it probably would have scrolled past on the ticker line.
The news has always been guilty of using hyperbole and scare tactics to make a huge deal out of something that doesn't matter. And with 9/11, they used the same strategy to make a world-changing deal out of something that DID matter.
Basically what I am complaining about here, is that 9/11 was big news. It showed a serious lack of communication in our intelligence agencies; it showed that the US was now part of the global problem that is/was terrorism; and it showed that the terrorists are well organized, well funded, and that it is really hard to stop someone that is willing to die for their cause.
But the news media implicated everyone. The airlines, the airports, immigration, Arabs, Jews, Iraqis, the Clinton administration, the Bush administration, Al Gore, Anand Shah, to name just a few. 9/11 was a huge mistake on someone's part, and there was enough blame to go around. It might have been nicer to blame one person and have that person be fired/executed. But there were lapses all around, and most people can admit this.
But because everyone was so hyped about this, and we were so terrified that something like this could happen again that we passed laws like the Patriot Act, we cracked down on visas for everyone, instituted racist screening and profiling processes, made our embassies into fortresses, and divided our country with a jingoist feeling that made every immigrant feel the need to plaster flags to prove that they, too, loved this place we call America.
But is terrorism any more of a problem than it was pre 9/11? Is it any less of a problem? In 1998, the US fired 72 cruise missiles at possible hiding places of Osama Bin Laden, in an attempt to kill him before he caused any more harm. He was already on the list of most wanted people in the world, and had a huge bounty on his head. It's not like we thought we were invincible. The World Trade bombings in 1993 escaped noticed because only a few people died. Basically, the terrorists screwed up. Given 8 years and a second chance, they didn't screw up the second time. So why were we so blind that time, and why do we purport to be so aware now?
Let's suppose that Bin Laden had instead engineered a series of smaller incidents to be performed over a few years rather than one huge incident, and then nothing for the next 3 years. Would we be in Iraq? Would we have 'liberated' Afghanistan? Would there be a color-coded terror alert? Would we have passed legislation like the Patriot Act? Would people be basing this entire election on terrorism?
I don't know the answers to these questions. But I think that because 9/11 was such a HUGE story, we all jumped the gun on terrorism. It has become the defining force of Bush's administration, and it reeks of a communist witchhunt to me. Had we been eased into being a terrorist target, I think Americans would have accepted terrorism as a fact of life, just like they have accepted murder, rape, robbery, car accidents, drunk driving, corporate scandals, government corruption, lying, deceit, and god.
Because that is what we all need to do. Accept it, and live with it. We can't stop all terrorism, just like we can't stop all theft. Yes, we COULD lock everyone in their houses, behind steel doors and electric fences, and that would probably be semi-effective. But why would you want to live in a house like that? As corny as it sounds, you can't take away what makes this country a nice place to live all in the name of making it a safe place to live.
In the end, we aren't any safer from terrorists than we were pre-9/11. And we really aren't in any more danger, either. Because like everything else in the world, we are shielded by our anonymity, and in the safety of numbers. So just go on living your lives; because you already are. Almost no one in this country outside of New York had to deal with the consequences of terrorism, and even those people aren't any more pitiable than survivors of other tragedies like murder and natural disasters.
I am not suggesting that we give up on the 'war on terrorism'. Yes, we need to secure our country, but we can't spend all our resources on it. Believe it or not, there are more important things in the future, and you can't go into the future if you're always looking over your shoulder in paranoia.
So don't think about terrorism. Turn off the TV, the radio, and close the newspaper. What you don't know almost certainly won't hurt you.
# posted by Stuart @ 10:08 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Personally, I find the idea of 'securing' our country laughable. Nothing substantial can really be secured. While it's certainly possible to foil a plot here and there, and it's certainly likely that the more effort we expend, the more plots we'll be likely to foil--we simply can't expect to 'secure' any significant portion of the fragile life and property in the space between the Atlantic and Pacific. Once people get their heads together again (assuming they someday will), they'll recognize that this issue, like all others, boils down to a question of how much money, time, and effort we really want to spend on it.
Do you remember, about a year after 9/11, when France had that massive heat wave? And 10,000 people died of heat stroke in several days? The response, over here, was basically a yawn. Our country--which was still furious at France for being unenthusiastic about joining us in a war that was dubiously connected to an event that cost our country 3,000 lives--yawned at an event that cost France 10,000!
Now, there are plenty of important differences between our tragedy and theirs (we were attacked by some stupid, worthless, shit-eating scum for religious reasons, they were attacked by nature for no reason), but when you really think about it, who got hit harder? They did, but it doesn't seem that way. Why? Because 9/11 was, first and foremost, a spectacle, a horrifying visual experience, a lot of impressive property dammage, and that's exactly what it was supposed to be.
If all they wanted was to kill us in large numbers, there are easier, less risky ways than what they chose. What they really wanted was to make a statement--a murderously incoherent religious statement.
The sad thing, to me, is that almost everyone seems to have fallen for it. It's almost blasphemous to even mention the possibility that what we really need in this "post-9/11 world," is a some perspective and a stiff upper lip. The longer this atmosphere lasts, the more successful the attacks will prove to have been.
Post a Comment
Do you remember, about a year after 9/11, when France had that massive heat wave? And 10,000 people died of heat stroke in several days? The response, over here, was basically a yawn. Our country--which was still furious at France for being unenthusiastic about joining us in a war that was dubiously connected to an event that cost our country 3,000 lives--yawned at an event that cost France 10,000!
Now, there are plenty of important differences between our tragedy and theirs (we were attacked by some stupid, worthless, shit-eating scum for religious reasons, they were attacked by nature for no reason), but when you really think about it, who got hit harder? They did, but it doesn't seem that way. Why? Because 9/11 was, first and foremost, a spectacle, a horrifying visual experience, a lot of impressive property dammage, and that's exactly what it was supposed to be.
If all they wanted was to kill us in large numbers, there are easier, less risky ways than what they chose. What they really wanted was to make a statement--a murderously incoherent religious statement.
The sad thing, to me, is that almost everyone seems to have fallen for it. It's almost blasphemous to even mention the possibility that what we really need in this "post-9/11 world," is a some perspective and a stiff upper lip. The longer this atmosphere lasts, the more successful the attacks will prove to have been.
# posted by 
: 1:28 PM
: 1:28 PM << Home
