Terror and the Terrorising Terrorisors who Terrify

Or, A Guest Blog by Nigel.

(Editor's note: Opinions expressed in this guest blog, and most importantly the British spellings, are not necessarily those of the owners of Gobstruck, or its employees. But we do hope you enjoy this guest rant.)

Today brings news of a major plot to bomb several US airlines. Apparently it has been foiled by the diligence and professionalism of the men and women of the British and US law enforcement and security services. They should be thanked and applauded for their fine work, much of which, I am sure, is carried out under difficult and dangerous circumstances.

My concern is that once again, certain elements will use this news for their own political gain. For too long, Americans have allowed the far right of the Republican Party to control the debate about our nation’s security, and one of their most useful tools in that debate has been the “War on Terror.”

Let’s consider that phrase “War on Terror.” Here’s an interesting quote, by Sir Michael Howard, a historian. It appears in Eric Alterman’s excellent book “What Liberal Media?”.

'To "declare war" on terrorists, or even more illiterately, on "terrorism", is at once to accord them a status an dignity that they seek and which they do not deserve. It confers on them a kind of legitimacy. Do they qualify as "belligerents?” If so, should they not receive the protection of the laws of war? This was something that Irish terrorists always demanded, and was quite properly refused. But their demands help muddy the waters, and were given wide credence among their supporters in the United States.

But to use, or rather misuse the term "war" is not simply a matter of legality, or pedantic semantics. It has deeper and more dangerous consequences. To declare that one is "at war" is immediately to create a war psychosis that maybe totally counter-productive for the objective we seek. It will arouse an immediate expectation, and demand, for spectacular military action against some easily identifiable adversary, preferably a hostile state; action leading to decisive results.'

War psychosis? Almost the first thing that was mentioned in any reports about today’s events was that the “Terror Threat Level “ was “Elevated” or “Red”, or some other descriptor indicating that we should all be more scared than we were before we went to bed last night. We are at “War”, after all.

Millions of Europeans of a certain age grew up with the knowledge that their lives, or the lives of loved ones, could be snuffed out by some random act of political violence. It was a fact of life, like road accidents. Baader Meinhof, Basque Separatists, and the alphabet soup of Anglo-Irish terrorism in the 1970s and 80s were a part of the media background noise of my youth. Like millions of other Europeans, I was raised by parents who had experienced, first hand, a real war, complete with bombs and the first examples of cruise and ballistic missiles. They didn’t need “Threat Levels” to tell them how scared they should be. Today in America, the picture is very different.

Terrorism is essentially a law and order issue, either nationally or internationally. Non-state actors who commit violent crimes against innocent civilians are violent criminals, nothing more. No claims of political or religious motivation justify random violence. So why was the Bush administration so quick to label this policing issue a “War”?

The answer lies in the rhetoric that has been employed by the right, both in the political arena, and by the Republican’s numerous proxies in the media. It allows the right to construct a frame in which anyone who questions or criticizes the administration’s policies can be portrayed as “defeatist”, “weak”, or worst of all, a “traitor”. We are at “War”, it’s a question of national survival, and if you do not go along with us you are un-American. Post 9/11, it’s very difficult to argue with. Witness some of the nonsense that’s been spouted since Ned Lamont’s primary victory over Joe Lieberman. Here’s Bill O’Reilly:

“OREILLY: I do not believe that Ned Lamont and his fellow travelers understand any of this. The far left continues to believe the USA is the root cause of the terror war, and that Iran is not a major threat. The far left mantra goes, “Why shouldn’t the Iranians have nukes? Israel has them.” “Talking Points” understands that geopolitical analysis is difficult, and that the Bush administration has not fully explained the grave danger we face from Iran. Joseph Lieberman and others do understand that danger and did not—he did not sell out his country to pander to the anti-war vote. For that, Lieberman was defeated. Now, I believe this is a chilling indication of what lies ahead in American politics. Iran’s betting we Americans have no will to restrain their jihad, and judging from the Connecticut vote last night, they might be right. And that’s the memo." (Thanks to Think Progress.)

It’s a remarkably elastic frame that can be used to fit almost any circumstance. The problem for the Republicans is, I think, that it’s not working anymore. Those same Connecticut voters who so unceremoniously ejected Senator Lieberman from his seat in the Senate (as a Democrat, at least) are indicative of an awakening in the American electorate. Five years after 9/11, people are overcoming the profound shock of that day, and as they emerge from the haze, they are seeing through the disinformation and outright lies that this failed government has been pushing on them, in the name of “protecting” them from the “evildoers”.

The “War on Terror” has been used as the rationale for launching a war on an odious, but contained, regime (if anyone doubts Iraq is about anything other than oil, ask yourself why the US hasn’t invaded Sudan to promote “freedom”) wholesale illegal wiretapping of American citizens, and the detention without trial and torture of alleged “enemy combatants”. How about the fantastically profligate use of presidential signing statements? Just a few examples of abuses of power by this administration. None of these actions has anything remotely to do with the letter or spirit of the US Constitution, and America and its citizens are diminished by the actions of the Bush administration.

Americans are coming to the realization that Europeans had many years ago; the world is a dangerous place. “When your number’s up, your number’s up” as my mother used to say. The trick is not let it get in the way of how you live your life, or run your country.

As we approach the fifth anniversary of 9/11, ask yourself this question: do you feel safer now than you did before that awful day? My guess is that most people would answer in the negative.

Now ask yourself this: do you think those on whose watch 9/11 happened, and who have been allowed unfettered access to the levers of power in the United States since, still deserve that access?

Had enough?