April 27, 2004
Earthquake
Here in this little western valley where we live there is going to be an earthquake, a big one if the scientists who study these things are right. Pretty much everyone above the age of ten has heard the warnings. Not very many of us have made any changes in our lives related to that threat. The threat is real enough, but by moving here we have made a choice. That choice includes living in an area of the country where earthquakes can happen at any time.
The science of earthquake prediction is new and accuracy is low. The idea that a big one will come this year hasn’t penetrated the shields of denial that most of us use to live here without freaking out too frequently. The optimism/denial method of dealing with threats to life and limb is a truly beneficial human trait when it is applied to things like earthquakes over which we have minimal control. Why have we stopped using it in relation to Terrorism? The idea that our government can effectively stop terrorism here by waging war half a world away is almost comical in its tragic lack of a connection to reality.
Granted, there are few if any politicians who would dare tell us that there is little that can be done to prevent terrorism. This essay is not an attack singling out Bush in particular; most of our leadership suffers from the same lack of good sense in regard to terrorism and forces of nature. But terrorism, like earthquakes, cannot be ended, it can only be contained. It will certainly not be ended by waging war in Iraq. I have an idea; perhaps we should declare war on earthquakes. Our economy is lagging, it might help. Of course it would do nothing to prevent earthquakes. Our little neo-confident adventure in Iraq has about the same likelihood of success in preventing terrorism as a war on earthquakes would provide against the shaking that we will eventually get here.
Does that mean that we should do nothing? Of course not! It means that once we understand that war in Iraq cannot end terrorism we can actually devise some sensible ways to deal with this problem. In the short term we would have been far better off using the money we are wasting in Iraq making our nation more secure at the local level. $90 billion would have done a lot more to enhance our security if we had spent it here than it has by spending it to demolish and rebuild Iraq. We could have spent it creating rapid response teams to react quickly to terrorism which is more like fire in how it occurs than like war. Terrorism is an act of concentrated violence unlike war which is an enduring level of violence.
In one day the evil acts of 19 mostly Saudi men raised the level of fear in this nation high above the level of reason. From our fear came anger, so we started a war with Iraq. The connection is tenuous at best. We can largely protect ourselves against Terrorism at home. We cannot end “terror” caused by people who embrace death. People like that should only scare us a little unless they are actually present in the room with us. Then we should kill them. People here will not continue to live in greater fear than is necessary to deal with this issue, not at least unless they are badly led. They will begin to apply denial and optimism to the problem before long. As that trend continues the aggressive isolationism of Bush in Iraq will look worse and worse as a response to the problem of terrorism here at home. War fought alone is a lonely enterprise indeed.
We can limit Terrorism’s impact by reducing the attractiveness of various targets and responding quickly to predictable events. For instance, terrorists would love to disrupt the Democratic National Convention in Massachusetts. In that they are much like the Republican Party’s most rabid adherents. Kerry’s election would quite possibly lead to more effective leadership here and more effective international coalitions fighting terrorists. Terrorists would never want that to happen. Bush’s aggressive isolationism is the ideal reaction from our nation for their purposes. It provides terrorists with the enemy of their dreams. In Iraq we are quickly becoming a flailing giant. We will soon look blind and destructive enough to enrage even those in Islamic nations who would never otherwise support terrorism.
Certainly we can scare some of the people who might commit acts of terrorism with our military might, especially those with something substantial to lose like various national leaders. We had scared Saddam out of the terrorism business long before we removed him. That is obviously true in spite of the blatant lies we have been told about his connections to al Queda and Usama. There was clearly no command and control system for managing terrorists in Saddam’s government. Those lies were told in order to gain our acceptance for our government’s war in Iraq. We are there now and it is going to cost us a lot more than $90 billion before we get out. Recruitment and support for Jihad is at an all time high and we have a “War President” in charge here. If Bush is reelected four more years of occupation are the minimum that we need to prepare for in Iraq.
The earthquake is coming and when it hits it will probably be a real blast. Homes will collapse and buildings will suffer damage and everyone will talk about it for a month or so, then we will rebuild. A few may die, a few more will leave and the rest of us will just keep on keeping on with our lives. The same is going to eventually be true of the War on Terror. Once Iraq is settled one way or the other the world will just go on rotating the way it always has. War will linger in Iraq for a time and then the resolution will become obvious to everyone. Live our lives and let others live theirs unless they try to kill us, then kill or capture them and make them stop it. God bless you all and help you keep you and yours safe in this dangerous world.
Good article, Henri.
People like that should only scare us a little unless they are actually present in the room with us. Then we should kill them. People here will not continue to live in greater fear than is necessary to deal with this issue, not at least unless they are badly led.
I’m temporarily living outside the US, and I was surprised to find, looking in from the outside, what a culture of fear has been created and nurtured in the United States. It’s pretty clear to me that a single (admittedly big) event is being manipulated by the Bush administration to push their agenda through an otherwise skeptical Congress and public.
Can you imagine if Bush hadn’t been able to convince Americans that terrorists were after every single American personally? If he hadn’t been able to convince little old librarians to call the FBI everytime a “foreigner” checked out the Old Farmers Almanac?
Bush would have had to work with the UN to overthrow Saddam Hussein. He would have had to try to solve the Israeli/Palestinian problem diplomatically, rather than being able to give Sharon free rein. He would have been held accountable for the Republican’s out of control spending and his prolonging of the recession. And he would have been accountable for a serious, adequately funded and well thought out plan for homeland security.
Before 9/11, this administration was on track towards being a mediocre, one term trick. Their one big accomplishment would have been the tax-cuts-for-the-rich. And even shoe-horning that through Congress cost them Jeffords defection.
This administration has never proposed any good ideas for making this country better, and if you discount all the hullabaloo about terrorism, the only thing this administration has accomplished is a return to deficit spending and legislative accomodations for their biggest campaign donors.
Based on domestic policy, there’s no reason for another four years of nothing.
If you want to talk about how the administration has screwed up our foreign policy, and how their supposed strong suit of warmaking is actually so bungled that they have our guys sitting in a foreign country getting shot at, they have no plan to get us out, they have no idea what they’re even specifically trying to achieve there, they don’t know how much it will cost, but are afraid to fund it adequately for fear of raising questions about bad fiscal policy, and their allies of convenience are bugging out left and right, etc, etc. Well, that’s a different topic.
HEY! Wake up call to everyone! I don’t seem to share this reassurance Kerry has a mind for safety or for the American people. The man is, simply stated, a hipocritical flip flopping fool! I don’t recall Bush supporting pulling out of weapon development and supplies for our troops, nor do I see him throwing medals over the fence. And don’t stop me here, as this is not a “phony controversy”! The reason we conservatives bite so stongly at this is that for one, it is another changed story on the long list, and, Kerry wanted to use his war past as a lift up to this election. Well, Bush may or may not have done all that he should of during his serving, but, he does not brag of his service and then duck in a corner when asked about throwing medals. Oh, I’m sorry. Ribbons and medals of peers. Medals and ribbons are interchangable, correct?
But, enough of this drabble, back to the “earthquake.” For one, Iraq is a step towards killing terrorism as a whole, and don’t you know that the UN has some serious corruption issues? France taking Iraq bribes, UN sending money to pull out…? Wait…I though they approved of us. Yeah, they were with us all along weren’t they…NO! They weren’t! Things I can say about Bush is he does not want to disarm our troops and he accepts media critisism with stride. Kerry and his democratic goons are upset as the media is so for them that comments against Kerry must be ignored or destoyed. In the words of the oh-so-intelligent Hillary Clinton after her “right wing conspiracy” speech:
“That’ll teach them to **** with us!
I apologize for any mispelling, but not for my comments.
Posted by: TeenSpirit at April 28, 2004 06:00 PMwow….i don’t even know where to begin with this one…..
Posted by: rob at April 28, 2004 08:38 PMHenri: Very neat analogy. You actually managed to make a very right wing friend of mine think outside his normal worldview.
Posted by: Bob J Young at April 28, 2004 10:31 PMHey TeenSpirit,
don’t recall Bush supporting pulling out of weapon development and supplies for our troops
That’s because when Bush ran for Senate in 1978, he got his ass kicked. He never had a chance to kill a program.
Bush’s Vice President, however, did try to kill some programs. When he was Sec Defense for Bush’s daddy, he tried to kill the M-1 tank, the Apache attack helicopter, and the B-2 bomber. All of which are used in Iraq today. If the Democrats in the Senate (including Kerry) hadn’t stopped Cheney, our troops would be fighting in Iraq with rocks.
nor do I see him throwing medals over the fence
That’s just a dumb statement. Bush never got any medals. He was too busy avoiding the draft, “I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.” - George W. Bush, Dallas Morning News, Feb. 25, 1990
and he accepts media critisism with stride
“You fucking son of a bitch. I saw what you wrote. We’re not going to forget this.” - George W. Bush to writer and editor Al Hunt
TeenSpirit, you obviously listen to way too much Rush. You need an intervention, buddy.
>>The man is, simply stated, a hipocritical flip flopping fool!
Here’s why I’m voting for Kerry:
First, though he may be a flip-flopper, his much more international worldview is invaluable for our situation. Like Lee, I am temporarily living outside the US and what I see looking back at Bush is pure ignorance. Before 9-11, he knew virtually nothing about foreign policy (Remember all the criticism during the 2000 campaign?). Post 9-11, his foreign policy has been determined by a group of Anglo-centric neocons who, like him, are sadly misguided in their view of how the rest of the world thinks and works. Who else could actually believe that a war in Iraq would reduce terrorism and succesfully and easily result in democratic government? Or assume so naturally that there was no need to work through international diplomatic channels to solve the problem, the “shock and awe” might of the USA would be up to any task? But this isn’t supposed to be a rant against Bush. I merely want to contrast our current situation with that of Kerry, who already has been billing himself as an internationalist. From where I stand (Germany if you’re curious) any move away from our laughably self-centered policies is a good move.
Second, I believe that regardless of who bush is exchanged for, a change is what we need. Bush has gotten himself into a rather awkward position — he’s backed into a corner. He can’t exactly reverse course at this point without losing all his remaining shreds of credibility. And you can bet he won’t reverse course, even if it becomes (even more) patently obvious that where our nation is headed is not where we want to go. Kerry, as a new face, would enter the scene with no strong previous commitment to a course of action. As a result, he would be able to look accurately at the situation, and hopefully create a better plan. If not, well we haven’t really lost anything, have we, except a powerful symbol of american imperialism hated almost worldwide.
The funny thing is, in this situation Kerry’s penchant for flip-flopping starts to look not so bad after all. In this ever changing and confusing world of rogue states, hidden WMDs and terrorists, a truly adaptive leadership is just what we need. Bush has proved he cannot or will not adapt. Kerry can, and that’s why we need to give him a fair shot.
Yes a flip-flopper indeed. You know what flip-flopping can also be called? Admitting you were wrong — a practice the Bush Administration seems to be completely foreign to. Unless that’s what you want to call their decisions to:
Brag about the formation of the Homeland Security Department after staunchly opposing it in the first place.
Their decision to form the 9/11 Commission, after initially opposing it.
Their decision to allow Condi Rice, Bush and Cheney to testify before that panel after vehemently opposing it.
Their decision to suddenly promote the notion that REALLY we went into Iraq to sow the seeds of democracy in the Middle East, and to conveniently forget about that whole WMD thing after planting visions of mushroom clouds rising over NYC and LA in the minds of the electorate.
Need I go on?
See, everyone is “flip-flopping,” even your man Bush. So it’s a two-way street, meaning either BOTH Bush and Kerry are “flip-floppers” or BOTH are men capable of occasionally seeing the wrong in an initial position. As the old saying goes, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. The way I see it, this isn’t going to be an issue the candidates are going to be distinguished on — the Bushies just look silly whining about it because it’s a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Posted by: The Tube at April 29, 2004 10:01 AM“I don’t recall Bush supporting pulling out of weapon development and supplies for our troops,”
Oh? Perhaps you missed this editorial in Army Times last year. It starts:
“In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.”
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292259-1989240.php
And he’s cut funding for a bunch of stuff and not requested enough funding for his own initiatives (No Child Left Behind comes to mind).
” nor do I see him throwing medals over the fence. “
Dude, it was a PROTEST. John Kerry was against the war. He had first-hand knowledge of why Vietnam was a bad war. You can do a good job and still know that it’s benefiting a bad cause. He had the integrity to admit it and speak out. Trust “conservatives” like you to make a sin out of a virtue and virtue out of sin.
“And don’t stop me here, as this is not a ‘phony controversy’! “
It’s a big deal that a war hero threw medals/ribbons to make a stand against a war he wanted to stop, but it’s not a big deal that our Commander in Chief couldn’t be bothered to show up for duty, and his cronies busily covered up the whole thing? Not a big deal that this same guy pranced around in a flight suit in front of a sign saying “Mission Accomplished?” Care to explain this one?
“The reason we conservatives bite so stongly at this is that for one, it is another changed story on the long list, and, Kerry wanted to use his war past as a lift up to this election. Well, Bush may or may not have done all that he should of during his serving, but, he does not brag of his service and then duck in a corner when asked about throwing medals.”
Translation: We conservatives don’t have a good story of our own, so we need to sling mud.
“For one, Iraq is a step towards killing terrorism as a whole, and don’t you know that the UN has some serious corruption issues? France taking Iraq bribes, UN sending money to pull out…? Wait…I though they approved of us. Yeah, they were with us all along weren’t they…NO! They weren’t! “
I will agree with you that the UN issue is a serious one and needs a full investigation. It still has nothing to do with the fact that this invasion was a bad idea. It has nothing to do with the fact that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. If you’re going to go to war, it shouldn’t be on false pretenses, and you can’t make up excuses after the fact.
“Things I can say about Bush is he does not want to disarm our troops and he accepts media critisism with stride.”
Honey, you can say anything you want, but that doesn’t make it true. Puts you in the same illustrious company as Bush, Karen Hughes, and Karl Rove, though! Enjoy.
Posted by: webmacher at April 29, 2004 07:35 PM
