The hidden light of Afghanistan
Reply
Category Archives: Politics – Foreign Policy
How to win this particular war
In the context of the ten-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Spencer Ackerman reminds us of the point that James Fallows and others have been making for over five years – the most effective way to defeat terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized:
In case you haven’t noticed, hysteria is what the terrorists want. In fact, it’s the only win a decapitated, weakened al-Qaida can get these days. The only hope that these eschatological conspiracy theorists possess for success lies in compelling the U.S. to spend its way into oblivion and pursue ill-conceived wars. That’s how Osama bin Laden transforms from a cave-dwelling psycho into a world-historical figure — not because of what he was, but because of how we reacted to him.
And that points to the only way out of a trap that’s lasted a decade. It has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with politics. The U.S. has to embrace the reality that terrorism is not anything remotely like the existential threat we make it out to be. We can honor those 2,996 without being permanently haunted by them.[. . .]
The risk, in other words, is a political risk. The culture of fear: It’s a bipartisan race to the bottom. And it’s why the National Security State constructed by the George W. Bush administration has found a diligent steward in President Obama. Asked recently if the post-9/11 security apparatus might diminish soon now that al-Qaida looks weak, Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, replied, “No.” [. . .]
Only when citizens make it acceptable for politicians to recognize that the threat of terrorism isn’t so significant can the country finally get what it really needs, 10 years later: closure.
Read the entire piece. That citizens still have to endure such outrages as security theater reinforces the truth of what Ackerman writes.
Rory Stewart on the Afghan War
Security theater as comedy
Bruce Schneier on security theater
National Security Wisdom from the Joker
Cato’s Julian Sanchez brilliantly sums up the logic behind the national security policy that leads our government to impose this kind of absurd abuse on its citizens:
Batman’s archnemesis the Joker–played memorably by Heath Ledger in 2008‚Ä≤s blockbuster The Dark Knight–might seem like an improbable font of political wisdom, but it’s lately occurred to me that one of his more memorable lines from the film is surprisingly relevant to our national security policy:
“You know what I’ve noticed? Nobody panics when things go ‘according to plan.’ Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it’s all ‘part of the plan.'”
There are, one hopes, limits. The latest in a string of videos from airport security to provoke online outrage shows a six-year-old girl being subjected to an invasive Transportation Security Administration pat down–including an agent feeling around in the waistband of the girl’s pants. I’m somewhat reassured that people don’t appear to be greatly mollified by TSA’s response:
“A video taken of one of our officers patting down a six year-old has attracted quite a bit of attention. Some folks are asking if the proper procedures were followed. Yes. TSA has reviewed the incident and the security officer in the video followed the current standard operating procedures.”
While I suppose it would be disturbing if individual agents were just improvising groping protocol on the fly (so to speak), the response suggests that TSA thinks our concerns should be assuaged once we’ve been reassured that everything is being done by the book–even if the book is horrifying. But in a sense, that’s the underlying idea behind all security theater: Show people that there’s a Plan, that procedures are in place, whether or not there’s any good evidence that the Plan actually makes us safer.
And this is not all about civil liberties, either. As David Henderson points out, citizens who throw up their hands in disgust with the TSA’s security theater and elect to drive rather than take a short-haul flight risk a fatality rate that is 80 times higher per mile than travelers on a commercial airliner face.
In short, the TSA is killing people.
As with the overcriminalization of American life, the TSA is an ominous reflection of a federal government and major political parties that are increasingly remote and unresponsive to citizens.
Is it too late to change? That would be a good question for someone to ask President Obama, who was famously elected on the slogan of “change we can believe in.”
More Security Theater
Security theater endures to absurd levels. Is this dispositive proof that citizens no longer can limit abuses of power by the federal government?:
Elie Wiesel on the perils of indifference
Why We Need to Protect Bradley Manning and R. Allen Stanford
Glenn Greenwald has done an outstanding job of directing the blogosphere’s attention toward the U.S. Army’s inhumane pre-trial imprisonment of Private Bradley Manning, who is accused of providing classified information to WikiLeaks, which in turn published the info for the world to read.
The Manning affair has been bubbling just below the surface of public controversy for the past nine months. However, it started to become a full-blown public scandal last week when President Obama – who campaigned on the disingenuous slogan of “change we can believe in” – endorsed the military’s brutal treatment of this innocent young man while giving a feckless answer to a question about Manning’s treatment during a press conference.
Now, the Manning affair is turning into a firestorm. In addition to this scathing NY Times editorial, Greenwald’s latest post links to the international attention that our government’s abusive treatment of Manning is getting. Constitutional Law scholar Jack Balkin and his colleagues over at Balkinization have prepared and are circulating this excellent statement to the Obama Administration condemning the “degrading and inhumane” conditions of Manning’s “illegal and immoral” detention.
I applaud Greenwald for focusing attention on the gross injustice of the Manning case and for the others who are now objecting publicly to this outrageous misuse of governmental power. As with the government’s vapid security theater and overcriminalization of American life, Manning’s treatment is another powerful reminder of just how remote and unresponsive the government has become to civilized society.
Meanwhile, though, I’m wondering about something.
Why is Manning’s treatment – as barbaric as it is – generating much more outcry than the arguably worse treatment that R. Allen Stanford has received during his pre-trial incarceration?
If we are going to forego protecting the innocent because the accusations against them are serious and seemingly compelling, then – as Thomas More reminds us — “when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, . . . the laws all being flat?”
“This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, . . . do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?”
“Yes, I’d give the Devil the benefit of the law.”
“For my own safety’s sake.”
Mary Anastasia O’Grady on Free Trade and Drug Prohibition in Latin America
The Mary Anastasia O‚ÄôGrady ‚Äì longtime WSJ Americas columnist — is one of the most insightful commentators on Latin American politics and economics. In this ReasonTV interview, O‚ÄôGrady comments on the impact of free trade and drug prohibition on Latin America:
