Of all the
social and political topics swarming around in the fall air, those involving
human life seem to invoke the most emotion.
Abortion, euthanasia, gun control, capital punishment and terrorist attacks
first appear as black or white issues:
do something or people die. Of
course there are embedded shades of gray.
When does life begin? Is the right to die a democratic liberty? Do more guns cause or prevent mass
killings? Do certain killers deserve to
die? How much expenditure is too much to
prevent another attack against the homeland?
In my view this
last topic, terrorism, generates the least discussion and disagreement among
the public. There is little debate concerning the massive amounts of money and
willingness to accept less privacy associated with protecting the homeland. There is little discussion as to whether the
federal government should continue to have a blank check to take whatever
action necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks. One insight into this lack of pushback against
the expense and intrusion of homeland security is a recent July 2015 Rasmussen
poll. It found that 52% of Americans
believe the United States is a more dangerous place than before 9/11.
The FBI
definition of terrorism is: “a violent act dangerous to human life that
violates federal or state law and appears to be intended to intimidate or
coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction.”
Most people
get the “violent act” part and stop there.
They do not consider the “affect the conduct of government” portion of
the definition. Since 9/11 Congress has
spent over two trillion dollars on the war on terror. This includes our interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan
and the most recent efforts against ISIS.
This figure does not include another two trillion dollars in direct
economic costs to the economy following 9/11.
Nor does it include the non economic impact of increased surveillance on
Americans resulting from the Patriot Act and other policies.
I am now in
the camp that believes our war on terrorism since 9/11 have made matters worse
and increased the terrorist threat. This month we celebrate our fourteen year
anniversary of Afghan military involvement.
The ongoing quagmire has gained no strategic advantage and been a
fertile recruitment tool for ISIS. Moreover, I believe that if the enormous
costs of homeland security and the war on terror had been applied to repairing
America’s infrastructure and ongoing social problems, we would be better off as
a country. How can we as a nation find
that cutting entitlements to needy Americans is preferable to scaling back
these bloated programs?
The truth is
that terrorism has done more harm to the nation since 9/11, not by killing
Americans, but by changing our goals and priorities. To use the FBI definition,
the terrorism threat is: “affecting the conduct of government.” This is exactly
the result that Osama Bin Laden had in mind by bringing down the twin towers. His
strategic goal of long term US entanglement in the Mid East combined with
worsening economic and social problems that threaten our democratic
institutions (that cannot be addressed because of the expensive war on terror)
has come to pass. Bin Landen may be dead
but the impact of his actions continues and is growing.
I do not know
the true cost benefit analysis of our war on terror. It is impossible for the
average person to factor in the plots that may have been averted. I do know that tenfold more Americans die
from gun violence than from acts of terrorism.
On the other hand, large financial commitments to prevent a massive
killing field and trillion dollar losses like 9/11 may be justified, if
security efforts are in fact responsible for this result.
I simply wish that this issue would generate
some of the emotion and debate as other topics involving potential loss of life
in America. Are we getting our monies
worth with the war on terror and homeland security and are the tradeoffs worth
it? Hopefully the new election cycle
will place this topic front and center.
No comments:
Post a Comment