PulpLit.net

Fear Itself

As everyone knows by now, it was revealed in late May that the Bush administration had received numerous, if relatively nonspecific, indications that al Quaeda, a terrorist organization led by Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, was planning an attack on America. There was a report that planes might be used as suicide missiles. One agent even informed his superiors that Arabs with possible links to al Quaeda were training to fly airplanes in Florida. John Ashcroft, one of many who were aware of the dangers, released no information but, in July 2001, quietly stopped flying commercial airliners. The administration actually gave the airlines a vague danger warning last March but, apparently, didn't go far enough.

But I am not writing another liberal accusation of negligence. David Horowitz has rightly pointed out that the fault lies as much with Clinton's Democratic administration and its own negligent behavior as with Bush's (though it does not rest entirely on the Democrats, the charge that Horowitz predictably levies). Both the Democrats and the American public have treated the issue with a kind of understanding that makes the Bush administration's bullying responses and counter-accusations seem overly-defensive.

But what concerns me much more is the information that was released shortly after the "Pre-9/11" flare-up. VP Dick Cheney, after blasting Democrats on Thursday with a paranoid rant about their supposed accusations of negligence (very few of which were actually being made), told the American public that it is "certain" that al Quaeda will attack the US again.

Dear Mr. Cheney: Um, yeah, we know that. Duh. Thanks, Dad.

Suddenly, senators, congressmen, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and were on television warning us that an attack is "inevitable," and that terrorists will "not hesitate to use weapons of mass destruction." The administration pulls this scare card whenever the media or anyone else begins to question it or its moves. "Don't you know there's a war on?" they keep reminded the American public. But the move may have come a bit too quick this time, revealing the move for the cheap ploy that it is. We haven't advanced beyond yellow on Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge's silly color chart. In fact, administration officials admitted that the reports of increased al Quaeda activity were, at least in part, politically motivated. It is this that may hurt the administration more than the revelations of its knowledge prior to September 11. This talk of inevitable attacks so soon after the scandal began has cost the Bush administration a great deal of credibility - more than the scandal itself. Furthermore, Mueller all but admitted that the US was pretty powerless to stop such attacks. This is actually pretty fair; it's the truth, for once. People are probably going to die from terrorist attacks. The best the US can do, in my opinion, is to work hard to prevent weapons of mass destruction from reaching terrorist hands. An ideal, but currently impractical, method would be to get Russia to agree to end all nuclear work, then for both the U.S., Russian to scrap every single last nuclear missile they have. This gets rid of more than 90% of the nuclear missiles in the world. Then, destroy every last ounce of anthrax, smallpox &c., keeping only weak samples for the creation of vaccines. Stopping terrorism begins at home, not in Iran or Iraq. Russia will end its relations with Iran if the US helps Russia economically and shows its willingness not to share its own nuclear resources with other countries or alliances, such as NATO.

Of course, none of this will ever happen. The Green party isn't running this country or Russia - both have conservative governments filled with former Cold Warriors. The recent, much-trumpeted agreement between Bush and Putin to reduce nuclear weapons is actually a much weaker agreement than one that had been arranged previously - it will result in more mothballed missiles, but fewer destroyed ones.

But I digress. There may be some truth to the administration's claim that there is a greater risk of attacks right now. If that's true, the American public deserves to know. But by "wagging the dog," or distracting the public with military-related issues whenever the Democrats grow a little bold, the Bush administration risks a boy-who-cried-wolf scenario that will actually prove more dangerous in the long run.

More significantly, this is a very sinister form wagging the dog. There's Cheney, bellowing to Americans that they could be killed at any time. Scaring people to ensure their submission? This seems like a subtle form of "terrorism" itself. I realize this is a big and rather hyperbolic suggestion - that Cheney is deliberately scaring the public to advance his administration's agenda. Such diabolic thinking may not be an intentional strategy, but I'd be surprised if it weren't in the back of Cheney's mind, or those of the GOP strategists. I'm not trying to weaken the force of the word "terrorism" by using it in irrelevant contexts. I'm simply trying to show just how reprehensible the behavior of the administration is right now.

We should not to submit to these "scare tactics." We will all die someday. To passively submit to leaders whose actions and decisions you don't agree with out of fear is not only cowardly but irrational. The Republicans aren't necessarily doing the right thing to prevent more attacks in the future, particularly in their long-term international relations policies. Just because they tell us more attacks are coming, we shouldn't assume they're doing all they can or should be doing.

In World War II, London did not submit to fear, though dozens, even hundreds died every day from bombings. To submit from fear will avail you nothing but a misery of soul. Question everything. Even if you swiftly find you agree, question, for only then can you find truth.