![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Security Theater
Aug. 25th, 2006 12:35 amTwo friends have made excellent posts recently, pointing up the many counter-productive absurdities of the Bush Administration's policies on terrorism.
First off is Gordon Robison. Gordon has been a bureau chief for Fox News (on a contract basis), and was my boss in the news dept. at KSPC-FM at Pomona College. He's been on the ground in Middle East pretty much since we left college, 20 years ago, which puts him on the bleeding edge of the curve of Americans with real-world experience in the region. He leads off:
"I spent a couple of days trying to puzzle out the logic President Bush used on Saturday to tie the London airplane plot to Hezbollah. And then it hit me:
The Bush administration is not fighting Al-Qaeda. Apparently, it is fighting SPECTRE."
Later he continues:
"On the basis of President Bush’s Saturday radio address all this seems a pretty fair summary of what the administration believes is arrayed against it.
“America is fighting a tough war against an enemy whose ruthlessness is clear for all to see,” he said. “The terrorists attempt to bring down airplanes full of innocent men, women and children. They kill civilians and American servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they deliberately hide behind civilians in Lebanon. They are seeking to spread their totalitarian ideology. They’re seeking to take over countries like Afghanistan and Iraq so they can establish safe havens from which to attack free nations.”
Does the President really think Al-Qaeda is behind all these things? If an hierarchical Al-Qaeda still exists (which is debatable), it may well be behind the alleged London plot. Its involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, has waned partly because of American military action and partly because those conflicts are increasingly local and sectarian or tribal in nature. The idea of operational ties between the Shia Muslim militants of Hezbollah and the stridently anti-Shia Sunni Muslims who run Al-Qaeda borders on the absurd."
Next up, Bruce Schneier. Here are excerpts from his post:
"The point of terrorism is to cause terror, sometimes to further a political goal and sometimes out of sheer hatred. The people terrorists kill are not the targets; they are collateral damage. And blowing up planes, trains, markets or buses is not the goal; those are just tactics. The real targets of terrorism are the rest of us: the billions of us who are not killed but are terrorized because of the killing. The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act.
And we're doing exactly what the terrorists want.
...
Imagine for a moment what would have happened if they had blown up 10 planes. There would be canceled flights, chaos at airports, bans on carry-on luggage, world leaders talking tough new security measures, political posturing and all sorts of false alarms as jittery people panicked. To a lesser degree, that's basically what's happening right now.
Our politicians help the terrorists every time they use fear as a campaign tactic. The press helps every time it writes scare stories about the plot and the threat. And if we're terrified, and we share that fear, we help. All of these actions intensify and repeat the terrorists' actions, and increase the effects of their terror."
It's Bruce who came up with the concept I used for my title, a few years back. He defined it as:
"...ways of making people feel safer without actually improving anything."
Or, to paraphrase the old Billy Crystal SNL schtick, "It is better to feel safe than to be safe, dahhling."
As Gordon and Bruce make clear, the Bushies are all about the touchy-feelie theater aspects of security, with very little regard for actual safety. They're trapped in a movie (and George really is getting to direct).
Highly recommended, in both cases.
First off is Gordon Robison. Gordon has been a bureau chief for Fox News (on a contract basis), and was my boss in the news dept. at KSPC-FM at Pomona College. He's been on the ground in Middle East pretty much since we left college, 20 years ago, which puts him on the bleeding edge of the curve of Americans with real-world experience in the region. He leads off:
"I spent a couple of days trying to puzzle out the logic President Bush used on Saturday to tie the London airplane plot to Hezbollah. And then it hit me:
The Bush administration is not fighting Al-Qaeda. Apparently, it is fighting SPECTRE."
Later he continues:
"On the basis of President Bush’s Saturday radio address all this seems a pretty fair summary of what the administration believes is arrayed against it.
“America is fighting a tough war against an enemy whose ruthlessness is clear for all to see,” he said. “The terrorists attempt to bring down airplanes full of innocent men, women and children. They kill civilians and American servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they deliberately hide behind civilians in Lebanon. They are seeking to spread their totalitarian ideology. They’re seeking to take over countries like Afghanistan and Iraq so they can establish safe havens from which to attack free nations.”
Does the President really think Al-Qaeda is behind all these things? If an hierarchical Al-Qaeda still exists (which is debatable), it may well be behind the alleged London plot. Its involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, has waned partly because of American military action and partly because those conflicts are increasingly local and sectarian or tribal in nature. The idea of operational ties between the Shia Muslim militants of Hezbollah and the stridently anti-Shia Sunni Muslims who run Al-Qaeda borders on the absurd."
Next up, Bruce Schneier. Here are excerpts from his post:
"The point of terrorism is to cause terror, sometimes to further a political goal and sometimes out of sheer hatred. The people terrorists kill are not the targets; they are collateral damage. And blowing up planes, trains, markets or buses is not the goal; those are just tactics. The real targets of terrorism are the rest of us: the billions of us who are not killed but are terrorized because of the killing. The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act.
And we're doing exactly what the terrorists want.
...
Imagine for a moment what would have happened if they had blown up 10 planes. There would be canceled flights, chaos at airports, bans on carry-on luggage, world leaders talking tough new security measures, political posturing and all sorts of false alarms as jittery people panicked. To a lesser degree, that's basically what's happening right now.
Our politicians help the terrorists every time they use fear as a campaign tactic. The press helps every time it writes scare stories about the plot and the threat. And if we're terrified, and we share that fear, we help. All of these actions intensify and repeat the terrorists' actions, and increase the effects of their terror."
It's Bruce who came up with the concept I used for my title, a few years back. He defined it as:
"...ways of making people feel safer without actually improving anything."
Or, to paraphrase the old Billy Crystal SNL schtick, "It is better to feel safe than to be safe, dahhling."
As Gordon and Bruce make clear, the Bushies are all about the touchy-feelie theater aspects of security, with very little regard for actual safety. They're trapped in a movie (and George really is getting to direct).
Highly recommended, in both cases.
