|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Fearing Fear Itself
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Fearing Fear Itself
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Luther |
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/o...serland&emc=rss
Fearing Fear Itself
By PAUL KRUGMAN
In America’s darkest hour, Franklin Delano Roosevelt urged the nation not to succumb to “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.” But that was then.
Today, many of the men who hope to be the next president — including all of the candidates with a significant chance of receiving the Republican nomination — have made unreasoning, unjustified terror the centerpiece of their campaigns.
Consider, for a moment, the implications of the fact that Rudy Giuliani is taking foreign policy advice from Norman Podhoretz, who wants us to start bombing Iran “as soon as it is logistically possible.”
Mr. Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary and a founding neoconservative, tells us that Iran is the “main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11.” The Islamofascists, he tells us, are well on their way toward creating a world “shaped by their will and tailored to their wishes.” Indeed, “Already, some observers are warning that by the end of the 21st century the whole of Europe will be transformed into a place to which they give the name Eurabia.”
Do I have to point out that none of this makes a bit of sense?
For one thing, there isn’t actually any such thing as Islamofascism — it’s not an ideology; it’s a figment of the neocon imagination. The term came into vogue only because it was a way for Iraq hawks to gloss over the awkward transition from pursuing Osama bin Laden, who attacked America, to Saddam Hussein, who didn’t. And Iran had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 — in fact, the Iranian regime was quite helpful to the United States when it went after Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies in Afghanistan.
Beyond that, the claim that Iran is on the path to global domination is beyond ludicrous. Yes, the Iranian regime is a nasty piece of work in many ways, and it would be a bad thing if that regime acquired nuclear weapons. But let’s have some perspective, please: we’re talking about a country with roughly the G.D.P. of Connecticut, and a government whose military budget is roughly the same as Sweden’s.
Meanwhile, the idea that bombing will bring the Iranian regime to its knees — and bombing is the only option, since we’ve run out of troops — is pure wishful thinking. Last year Israel tried to cripple Hezbollah with an air campaign, and ended up strengthening it instead. There’s every reason to believe that an attack on Iran would produce the same result, with the added effects of endangering U.S. forces in Iraq and driving oil prices well into triple digits.
Mr. Podhoretz, in short, is engaging in what my relatives call crazy talk. Yet he is being treated with respect by the front-runner for the G.O.P. nomination. And Mr. Podhoretz’s rants are, if anything, saner than some of what we’ve been hearing from some of Mr. Giuliani’s rivals.
Thus, in a recent campaign ad Mitt Romney asserted that America is in a struggle with people who aim “to unite the world under a single jihadist Caliphate. To do that they must collapse freedom-loving nations. Like us.” He doesn’t say exactly who these jihadists are, but presumably he’s referring to Al Qaeda — an organization that has certainly demonstrated its willingness and ability to kill innocent people, but has no chance of collapsing the United States, let alone taking over the world.
And Mike Huckabee, whom reporters like to portray as a nice, reasonable guy, says that if Hillary Clinton is elected, “I’m not sure we’ll have the courage and the will and the resolve to fight the greatest threat this country’s ever faced in Islamofascism.” Yep, a bunch of lightly armed terrorists and a fourth-rate military power — which aren’t even allies — pose a greater danger than Hitler’s panzers or the Soviet nuclear arsenal ever did.
All of this would be funny if it weren’t so serious.
In the wake of 9/11, the Bush administration adopted fear-mongering as a political strategy. Instead of treating the attack as what it was — an atrocity committed by a fundamentally weak, though ruthless adversary — the administration portrayed America as a nation under threat from every direction.
Most Americans have now regained their balance. But the Republican base, which lapped up the administration’s rhetoric about the axis of evil and the war on terror, remains infected by the fear the Bushies stirred up — perhaps because fear of terrorists maps so easily into the base’s older fears, including fear of dark-skinned people in general.
And the base is looking for a candidate who shares this fear.
Just to be clear, Al Qaeda is a real threat, and so is the Iranian nuclear program. But neither of these threats frightens me as much as fear itself — the unreasoning fear that has taken over one of America’s two great political parties. |
|
|
| zimmie |
| Paul Krugman is all I needed to read....he must be ready to kill himself as America sees progress in Iraq |
|
|
| Stonewall |
I don't think people are fearing fear itself.
I think people are concerned when they see attacks like 9/11. I think people want to avoid that type of thing.
Somehow the idea that we should go back to 9/10 security and mindset, that might seem insane to a thinking person. |
|
|
| Luther |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
I don't think people are fearing fear itself.
I think people are concerned when they see attacks like 9/11. I think people want to avoid that type of thing.
Somehow the idea that we should go back to 9/10 security and mindset, that might seem insane to a thinking person. |
If 9/11 was the only event in world history, maybe an informed, rational person might share your view. Reality is far more complex. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
If 9/11 was the only event in world history, maybe an informed, rational person might share your view. Reality is far more complex. |
It's not the only thing in the world. We have other attacks that we can view and notice a pattern. We can read what the enemy says. Hear what he says.
Fearing another 9/11 is not irrational. It is very rational and will almost definitely happen again regardless of what we do. It might be a good idea to try to prevent it as long as possible.
It was dumb to not fear 9/11 before it happened. After all we had been attacked before and were promised more attacks from the enemy. |
|
|
| Luther |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
It's not the only thing in the world. We have other attacks that we can view and notice a pattern. We can read what the enemy says. Hear what he says.
Fearing another 9/11 is not irrational. It is very rational and will almost definitely happen again regardless of what we do. It might be a good idea to try to prevent it as long as possible.
It was dumb to not fear 9/11 before it happened. After all we had been attacked before and were promised more attacks from the enemy. |
Considering five events rather than one event still does not mean that you have a proper sense of perspective. You remain unwilling to look at reality through the lens of objectivity.
I agree, it is certainly not irrational to fear terrorist attacks and to try to prevent them. There are many things that humans should fear in order increase the chances of survival, to increase happiness, and to decrease suffering; acts of violence by radical non-state actors from the other side of the world is fairly low on the list of things to be feared, certainly below automobile accidents, heart disease, cancer, food poisoning, STDs, it's probably on par with an attack by a wild animal. It is a threat that can be easily dealt with by a nation through common sense strategies and tactics. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
Considering five events rather than one event still does not mean that you have a proper sense of perspective. You remain unwilling to look at reality through the lens of objectivity.
I agree, it is certainly not irrational to fear terrorist attacks and to try to prevent them. There are many things that humans should fear in order increase the chances of survival, to increase happiness, and to decrease suffering; acts of violence by radical non-state actors from the other side of the world is fairly low on the list of things to be feared, certainly below automobile accidents, heart disease, cancer, food poisoning, STDs, it's probably on par with an attack by a wild animal. It is a threat that can be easily dealt with by a nation through common sense strategies and tactics. |
...you're doing it again Luth...!
Such simple logic/truth/reason is like Kryptonite to delusional freakazoids like StumpyNumbNutz... |
|
|
| mingmen |
| you just don't understand the muslim cannibals |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
you just don't understand the muslim cannibals |
...its all the secular variance...gots me confus-ed... |
|
|
| mingmen |
| must...stay...focused...on...muslim...threat...exclusively |
|
|
| mingmen |
| no...time...to...hate...other...non...whites |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
Considering five events rather than one event still does not mean that you have a proper sense of perspective. You remain unwilling to look at reality through the lens of objectivity.
I agree, it is certainly not irrational to fear terrorist attacks and to try to prevent them. There are many things that humans should fear in order increase the chances of survival, to increase happiness, and to decrease suffering; acts of violence by radical non-state actors from the other side of the world is fairly low on the list of things to be feared, certainly below automobile accidents, heart disease, cancer, food poisoning, STDs, it's probably on par with an attack by a wild animal. It is a threat that can be easily dealt with by a nation through common sense strategies and tactics. |
I don't disagree you are more likely to die of something else besides terrorism.
I disagree that we can easily prevent terror attacks. |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
"Consider, for a moment, the implications of the fact that Rudy Giuliani is taking foreign policy advice from Norman Podhoretz, who wants us to start bombing Iran “as soon as it is logistically possible.”
Mr. Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary and a founding neoconservative, tells us that Iran is the “main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11.” The Islamofascists, he tells us, are well on their way toward creating a world “shaped by their will and tailored to their wishes.” Indeed, “Already, some observers are warning that by the end of the 21st century the whole of Europe will be transformed into a place to which they give the name Eurabia.”
This is the basis for many of the problems we face wrt the use of military force throughout the world - the policies are not being formulated by experienced military leaders, they're being formulated by academics and ideologues.
Ask anybody with serious military experience if we should militarily engage on another front at this time, you'd get laughed at.
Ask some desk jockey who doesn't know which end of the piece the round comes out of, they'd probably say "why not?" real comment I've heard - "It's the Army's job to fight where they're sent!" said by a no-load civilian who never served when it was their turn to do so. |
|
|
|
|
|
