I've been debating with an "Order of the Day" reader for a few days now over one of the items I posted recently. The reader mentioned the "added threat of terrorism" in a post, as a response to one of my arguments, and I challenged this idea. I wish I could speak to the American people and have them understand (my intention not being to villify America) that America has contributed to far more "terrorism" in the last century than any of the countries now aligned with the term by the current administration (Iran, Iraq, North Korea, etc.). If by "terrorism" one means the unwarranted use of force or threat of violence to achieve political ends or to instill fear in another, then the United States has sponsored more terrorism than the aforementioned countries. Anyone who has read Noam Chomsky over the past three decades knows as much.
My bigger concern is the presumption that many Americans share that says there is an "added threat of terrorism" since 9/11. I have maintained for some time that, relative to the victims of American terrorism over the years (Chile, Panama, etc.), America's own threat of being the victim of terror is virtually non-existent. Outside of 9/11, the threat has not claimed many lives at all. And even 9/11, as terrible as it was, must be put into context to reign in the hysteria that has controlled the American public. Consider this passage from a story in the March 2004 edition of Harper's magazine:
In 2001, terrorists killed 2,978 people in the United States, including the five killed by anthrax. In that same year, according to the Centers for Disease Control, heart disease killed 700,142 Americans and cancer 553,768; various accidents claimed 101,537 lives, suicide 30,622, and homicide, not including the attacks, another 17,330. As President Bush pointed out in January, no one has been killed by terrorists on American soil since then. Neither, according to the FBI, was anyone killed by terrorists in 2000. In 1999, the number was one. In 1998, it was three. In 1997, zero. Even using 2001 as a baseline, the actuarial tables would suggest that our concern about terror mortality ought to be on the order of our concern about fatal workplace injuries (5,431 deaths) or drowning (3,247). To recognize this is not to dishonor the loss to the families of those people killed by terrorists, but neither should their anguish eclipse that of the families of children who died in their infancy that year (27,801). Every death has its horrors. (page 79)
I realize that when I make an overstatement like "there is no added threat of terrorism," I am inviting the failure of that argument at the first sign of a terrorist attack on US soil. Eventually, someday, maybe next week, maybe next year, maybe not in my lifetime: Somebody will try to attack the United States through the use of terror. That does not mean any efforts to prevent such an attack are justified. Crimes against civil liberties and crimes against foreign nations are not justified by the potential for terrorism.
A smarter response to the perception of an added threat of terrorism (one that has never existed, and one that shows no sign of materializing) would be to seek conciliation with the nations America feels are threatening. Make concessions. Remove military installations from some foreign countries. Breach the cultural divide that exists between the West and the Muslim world. Such concessions will make the difference between those who dislike America and those who dislike America enough to attack it. Some people will always have differences with American ideology; but not all of these people represent threats of violence against America.
Continuing to "fight fire with fire" will only stoke the flames of hate. This will only force some opponents of America from private forms of disagreement to public acts of terrorism. Cooler heads must prevail, and the beginning of this kind of conciliation is the recognition that 9/11 does not prove there is an added threat of terror. It's the same threat it always was.
11:25:30 PM 
|
|
