Via James Wolcott, I can’t say it any better than this:
“What has changed, grotesquely, is the aftershock,” Simon Jenkins writes in The Guardian,
delivering a splash of cold reality. “Terrorism is 10% bang and 90% an
echo effect composed of media hysteria, political overkill and kneejerk
executive action, usually retribution against some wider group treated
as collectively responsible. This response has become 24-hour,
seven-day-a-week amplification by the new politico-media complex,
especially shrill where the dead are white people. It is this that puts
global terror into the bang. While we take ever more extravagant steps
to ward off the bangs, we do the opposite with the terrorist
aftershock. We turn up its volume. We seem to wallow in fear.“Were I to take my life in my hands this weekend and visit Osama bin
Laden’s hideout in Wherever-istan, the interview would go something
like this. I would ask how things have been for him since 9/11. His
reply would be that he had worried at first that America would
capitalise on the global revulsion, even among Muslims, and isolate him
as a lone fanatic…“In the event Bin Laden need not have worried. He would agree, as
did the CIA’s al-Qaida analyst in Peter Taylor’s recent documentary,
that the Americans have done his job for him. They panicked. They drove
the Taliban back into the mountains, restoring the latter’s credibility
in the Arab street and turning al-Qaida into heroes. They persecuted
Muslims across America. They occupied Iraq and declared Iran a sworn
enemy. They backed an Israeli war against Lebanon’s Shias. Soon every
tinpot Muslim malcontent was citing al-Qaida as his inspiration. Bin
Laden’s tiny organisation, which might have been starved of funds and
friends in 2001, had become a worldwide jihadist phenomenon.“I would ask Bin Laden whether he had something special up his
sleeve for the fifth anniversary. Why waste money, he would reply. The
western media were obligingly re-enacting the destruction and the
screaming, turning the base metal of violence into the gold of terror.
They would replay the tapes and rerun the footage ad nauseam, and thus
remind the world of his awesome power. Americans are more afraid of
jihadists this year than last. In a Transatlantic Trends survey, the
number of them describing international terrorism as an ‘extremely
important threat’ went up from 72% to 79%…“Bin Laden might boast that he had achieved terrorism’s equivalent
of an atomic chain reaction: a self-regenerating cycle of outrage and
foreign-policy overkill, aided by anniversary journalism and fuelled by
the grim scenarios of security lobbyists. He now had only to drop an
occasional CD into the offices of al-Jazeera, and Washington and London
quaked with fear. The authorities could be reduced to million-dollar
hysterics by a phial of nail varnish, a copy of the Qur’an, or a
dark-skinned person displaying a watch and a mobile phone.”
I’ve been pounding this snare for some time. Bin Laden hasn’t attempted another major terror incident in the US because he doesn’t need to.
Yeah, back on September 13th or 14th, 2001, when the first step was taken towards a reduction in civil liberties without a hint of discussion about why we are so reviled in the first place, was the end of the War on Terrorism. That was the day we lost the war. Every thing since then has been sound and fury signifying nothing.
What does it say about the American population that they were so easily stampeded by fearmongering?
Looked at objectively the attack on 9/11 was large as a single event, but as part of the overall risks of life today fairly small. For example, each year the US has approximately 10 times the deaths due to firearms or automobiles. Now compare spending levels to prevent further deaths.
The amount spent to prevent a similar attack was vastly out of proportion to the threat. To protect against hijacking more planes, securing the cockpit doors and improved screening were adequate. But we also got armed soldiers at airport and other transport sites. Barriers to prevent truck bombs in front of almost every office building in Manhattan and a large number of questionable actions with regard to detaining immigrants.
During the blitz when London was experiencing actual bombs falling every night, the people were much less panicked. Casualty estimates for the campaign were 20,000 dead.
What was the difference?
Was it because of people like Churchill who called for bravery and sacrifice? Or was it that the population came from a period where hardship and sacrifice for the greater good were part of the common understanding of society?
Or, perhaps, people were better educated in those days and were able to evaluate risk probabilities better than now. Our educational system and the media have lost this ability. An event that has a one in a million chance of happening is treated as a real possibility. We can see this every day with the large number of people willing to play the lottery.
It is clear that Bush is personally afraid. His remarks about a clash of civilizations and good vs evil reflect his real fears. It is also true that Rove is very good at channeling this fear into a comprehensive campaign which is joined by the rightwing chorus.
So instead of Churchill’s “blood, sweat and tears” we get Bush’s “We’ve been attacked, go shopping.”
That the fearmongering worked so well is his doing or ours?
Dude, a plane slammed into the Pentagon. Another plane was headed for Congress or the White House. It was a very big deal. Lower Manhattan was basically destroyed.
It isn’t about your personal safety, it’s about attacks that attempt to decapitate our government and shut down our economy.
Let’s not downplay the significance of 9/11 by making it about personal risk.
I’m not trying to minimize the impact that the attacks had, but how people react to them. Apparently you belong to those who feel the threat strongly.
Now as to your statement. I highlighted was because that is the point, we were unprepared, but the appropriate steps were taken and that sort of attack is almost impossible now. On the other hand, other defensive measures have been overdone while others have been neglected. Proper risk assessment would make prevention efforts much more effective.
As for your statement that lower Manhattan was destroyed, I bet to differ. There was is an area of about 5 square blocks which was destroyed or damaged, but once the debris was cleared out the rest of the area returned to normal.
As proof of that I offer you my series of photos that I take periodically of the area, starting in 2003 and extending to this past 9/11.
You can judge for yourself how conditions are in the area. Here is the link if you wish to see the short slide shows:
http://robertdfeinman.com/nyc_stroll/index.html
I’m making a different point. The attacks were aimed at our stock market, our military, and our political leadership. We lose sight of that by focusing on the fact that civilians were killed.
I think he’s right – for an American reation. Overhere in Europe, recently the Dortmund Germany train bomb attempts, has not created a panic and no one obsesses over terrorism.
Granted, as Booman states here, the 9/11 attackes were aimed at political and financial infrastructure, and were massive. Yet, even in Spain, people are not freaked out. Perhaps it is that, though there has never been an attack on the level of 9/11, there has always been terroism here since the early anarchists and the assasination of Arch Duke Ferdinand right up through Baader-Meinhof, IRA, Red Brigades, ETA, etc. Perhaps people over here regard it as brutal criminality rather than a “WAR”.
I don’t know, but it seems to me that as an American and as an expat, my countrymen severly overreact to the threat. I also believe that it is not just my countrymen here, but rather how the administration stokes those fears like throwing gasoline on fire.
My commentary.