Spelling Terror
So here I am, in a 737 that is apparently immune to all laws of physics. Somewhere between the Immelmanns and the barrel rolls, my Continental jet makes its way to the runway at Reagan National Airport (DCA) in Washington. Yes, boys and girls--the process of getting me to the National Spelling Bee involves a barf bag.
All in the name of the war on terror(ism), of course.
By sheer virtue of the fact that our planes do loop-de-loops upon entering DC; because of the very fact that we incarcerate random Americans of Middle Eastern descent in Cuba; as a result of our continuing practice of cavity-searching brown travelers...we're letting the terror into our heads. We're on the defensive. We're losing the war.
How do I propose winning the war? We start with the first battle--in our minds. Let's not be afraid. Let's not keep pouring lots more money into slightly more effective airport scanners. Let's live as we always have. We can't forget about those lost on Sept. 11, but we can make Albert Qaeda believe we've done so. What happened when we didn't show any fear for 10 years after the first WTC bombing? Nothing, for a while. If the terrorists don't think we're afraid, they will realize they have to regroup to be effective. That gives us the high ground, and the chance to begin our first campaign.
That would be the "stop ticking people off" campaign. No more "preemptive invasions." No more propping up ANY regimes--including the Israelis and the Saudis. Let's recognize the authority of the United Nations in all our actions. Let's continue giving some jobs to people in other countries--but let's force our corporations to pay decent wages. Last but not least, if we're going to act as the world's police force, let's apply that force uniformly--with justice (not oil) in mind. I know these things are easier said than done, but all of them are absolutely critical to winning the war on terrorism.
For our main campaign of the war, let's go on the offensive. Let's promote our brand of freedom--while keeping in mind the idea that it may not be the best option for every country. Let's continue to embrace and export capitalism--and show other nations how they can enjoy it as well. Let's flex our military muscle--but reserve its use for social justice and homefront defense. Let's live free--as we always have--and stay vigilant.
Let's do all these things. I think we can--and to some degree we're already doing so. Let's spell al-Qaeda (and terrorism in general) E-N-D-A-N-G-E-R-E-D.
All in the name of the war on terror(ism), of course.
By sheer virtue of the fact that our planes do loop-de-loops upon entering DC; because of the very fact that we incarcerate random Americans of Middle Eastern descent in Cuba; as a result of our continuing practice of cavity-searching brown travelers...we're letting the terror into our heads. We're on the defensive. We're losing the war.
How do I propose winning the war? We start with the first battle--in our minds. Let's not be afraid. Let's not keep pouring lots more money into slightly more effective airport scanners. Let's live as we always have. We can't forget about those lost on Sept. 11, but we can make Albert Qaeda believe we've done so. What happened when we didn't show any fear for 10 years after the first WTC bombing? Nothing, for a while. If the terrorists don't think we're afraid, they will realize they have to regroup to be effective. That gives us the high ground, and the chance to begin our first campaign.
That would be the "stop ticking people off" campaign. No more "preemptive invasions." No more propping up ANY regimes--including the Israelis and the Saudis. Let's recognize the authority of the United Nations in all our actions. Let's continue giving some jobs to people in other countries--but let's force our corporations to pay decent wages. Last but not least, if we're going to act as the world's police force, let's apply that force uniformly--with justice (not oil) in mind. I know these things are easier said than done, but all of them are absolutely critical to winning the war on terrorism.
For our main campaign of the war, let's go on the offensive. Let's promote our brand of freedom--while keeping in mind the idea that it may not be the best option for every country. Let's continue to embrace and export capitalism--and show other nations how they can enjoy it as well. Let's flex our military muscle--but reserve its use for social justice and homefront defense. Let's live free--as we always have--and stay vigilant.
Let's do all these things. I think we can--and to some degree we're already doing so. Let's spell al-Qaeda (and terrorism in general) E-N-D-A-N-G-E-R-E-D.
posted by Sameer | 6:42 AM
3 Comments:
Completely agree on moving past fear. Easier said than done - how do we help people do this? Overspending on imperfect scanners seems like a waste until it prevents even one disaster - I'd prefer to do more cost-benefit analysis as well, but then I don't have to answer questions from victims' families.
What has ever stopped ticking people off? When we're involved (even just sending aid), we're tyrannical. When we're not involved, we're uncaring. Working with the UN and regulating what corporations pay in other countries does effect other regimes. And while I like the idea of the UN, I think its member countries are so self-interested and polarized that it is for the most part less principled than the United States (Libya chairing Human Rights?). This wouldn't necessarily apply to the staff who could definitely be more realistic.
When is freedom not the best option? And what defines social justice for military intervention? The spokespeople for the Sudanese army/rebels claim it's a political conflict, which we're supposed to respect. Meanwhile millions are killed and tortured - their political rights are the least of their concerns.
I'm completely attacking the holes I see since I like your overall theme. If you want suggestions for answering any of these, I'm happy to offer those, too, but I want my comments to be more responding to your thoughts since it's your campaign.
Thank you guys for your comments!
I'll respond to one of the main themes I'm seeing here:
Value/Role/etc. of the UN:
I agree with both of you guys--the UN has until now been largely ineffective as a world governing body. That's because none of its member states (including us) is willing to give up any significant sovereignty in terms of laws, war-making, etc. But what if they did? What if the UN were a stronger force? (A topic for a future post, methinks?)
With nearly all the major nations of the world participating, the US would have no need to prop up regimes for stability's sake. The UN could take care of that--and with the power of 100+ nations behind it (assuming they weren't momentum-less), it could choose which nations/regions to prop up as a body--and based on values. With an effective UN pounding on, say, Saudi Arabia for its rigidly theocratic regime, the Saudis have two options: no contact with UN nations at all, or fix their issues. Yes, I know we tried that in Iraq. I said a STRONG UN. :)
And my favorite question here:
When is freedom not the best option?
oooooooh. By 'freedom' I meant 'democracy.' And I know that's a scary link to make. Noted, and I'll make sure to be more careful in the future.
But no, I don't think democracy is always the best choice. I don't think it's the best choice for a developing nation that badly needs order (insert random central African nation here). I don't think it's the best choice for a people who don't want to choose for themselves (a large population of Saudis, methinks). And I'm certainly a fan of trying new forms of government out in new states (I'll leave that one on the table.)
For the UN, I don't know if it makes sense for us to give up sovereignty there yet. When most world governments are rulers who are in power for themselves, why should we give them authority over us? Not that our leaders aren't similarly out for themselves, but we (at least theoretically) get to replace them every 2-6 years.
I would perhaps be more open to it if the only members were those who were elected by their people, so there is similar accountability. Of course, most people (including Americans) are willing to screw "them" over, however they define "them" vs. "us," so that might not be any safer.
How could we broaden nations' definition of "us" so that trust and cooperation could lead to a stronger global authority? And no cheap Iraq shots here - the general assembly of the UN has loved ganging up on bigger members since its inception, so it's a deeper problem than the current administration.
Post a Comment
<< Home