Letters to the Editor
-
@ futhark
I generally agree completely with both your comments (except for the 9/11 conspiracy part, although I believe skepticism of government is always healthy), and that's why I'm taking up the discussion. But you've simply restated your position that the Islamic terrorist threat to the US is minor. It is and it isn't minor.
The fact is that the risks and hazards of terrorist attack in the US are unknown and always will be. We agree that they are low, but enough uncertainty exists that anyone who wants can make hay of them. They are elastic, in other words, and thus, we have Giuliani's cynical braying and Glenn's post. Who can stretch them farther? Who can stretch them farthest?
The fact that the real risks and hazards are low simply does not translate to corresponding political risks and hazards. To a politician, the risks and hazards are much, much higher than to a citizen.
Therefore, the politicians have all abandoned any pretense of speaking about the real risks and hazards. They are so low as to present a political risk in themselves. Forget about them---they do not drive our discourse. Only the political risks and hazards count.
Political risk of attack: unacceptable.
Political hazards of attack: astronomical.
We must understand this. It's not quite the same as the Social Security myth and other outright fabrications. It has a basis in reality and in the logic of survival.
By minimizing these, we render ourselves irrelevant. I argued that we must make use of them in an honest and realistic way, by telling the truth in the right way and toward a particular goal, so that the cynical butt-covering of right and center are exposed.
One adjunct to such a strategy may be to shift the emphasis from they-will-kill-us (terrorists) to they-fear-us (Muslims in general). They justifiably fear us and the evidence is abundant. I see that as the easiest path, since (a) it doesn't deny that the terrorists "hate" us and our "way of life" and (b) it makes us feel better vs making us feel worse. That is, it presents the fewest vulnerabilities. And it suggests that the more we do to them, the more we will suffer blowback. Some voters already get this. And it's not fear-mongering at all.
Once there, one can publicly suggest that we back off on the knee-jerk lashing-out of military adventurism without declaring defeat. Working with Muslims and Muslim countries will bring obvious security benefits. Security will never stop being a hot issue, but we can gain control of the security area if we treat the risks and hazards of terrorist attack "with utmost seriousness."