Remember the end of the 2005 summer when the intelligence community busted a plot to use liquid explosives to blow up a plane? Do you remember a couple of years ago when some guy tried to hide explosives in his shoes to blow up a plane? Remember how much everything changed after 9/11?
The goal of terrorism is not to kill people. Its goal is to make a lot of noise in order to bring attention to a specific cause, or to make a point. Killing big groups of people just happens to be one of the best ways to get people's attention. The point jihadists are trying to make is that capitalists are morally corrupt and are trying to corrupt their children and their culture in the same ways. Few people can argue that this is not true. I've never heard a reasonable argument against it; especially if you know just a little about Islamic beliefs. The cause the jihadists are working for is to "cut off the hand which offendeth thee" as Christians might say. They want the decadent capitalists and their evil influence out of their nation.
This is not to say that I condone their killings of thousands of people. It is only to make a point. They want to disrupt capitalism as much as they can, as long as it is stretching is imposing shadow over them. This raises two questions: first, have they succeeded, and second, what is the cost-benefit for us?
The first question is answered straightforwardly. Absolutely yes. The 9/11 attack was tremendously successful, as were later attacks whether carried out or "foiled" by intelligence. After 9/11 it became much more difficult to travel by air. Business representatives were undoubtedly impeded in their work. After the liquid explosives incident, what happened at airports? More security, more inconvenience, more time for check-in, and no electronics for a time (thank goodness that restriction has been eased up). You can't take your own water onto a plane. Then the explosive shoe furthered our inconvenience.
Of course, you're thinking right now, 'yeah, but at least nobody has died recently', and I would agree, but jihadists don't care. Each mission has been a success.
So what's the cost? Mere inconvenience? Perhaps. If you have traveled much you know that it can be a significant inconvenience. Imagine people who travel several times a month. They likely lose several working days worth of time by the inconvenience. The department of Home Land Security pays for all of the security guards, their training and their equipment, which may not be a great deal of money for a single year, but it adds up.
'But that's a small price to pay if it keeps us safe' you're saying. I would ask, does it keep us safe? For all of the security measures in place at airports there are still countless ways in which already familiar attack plans could again be implemented. How many retail stores are inside the security gates, and how many packages come in everyday? There are other ways to blow up a plane than putting someone with explosives on it. If we want to talk about other means of terrorism, how many millions of shipping containers come into the US every year with out ever being looked at?
So have their been "successful" terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11? YES, although fortunately none have been lethal. Do the security measures in place keep us safe? I don't feel any safer traveling now than I did in 2000. In fact, I wonder if the security measures aren't taken as a "challenge" for some.
The final question then, is our involvement in middle eastern Islamic countries really worth all of this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Gosto de assuntos politicos...Penso que tem escrito bem, que tem conseguido questionar e argumentar de modo inteligente!!
Os textos tem a capacidade de fazer o leitor refletir sobre o assunto...
Parebéns!
You state that one of the main points the jihadists are trying to make is that Capitalist are morally corrupt. That may be a claim of theirs, but it is a baseless claim. Every Muslim I met was just as corrupt or worse, than us capitalist. You also state the Muslim’s want us out of their country. Well, I believe that some do, the ones that want power over their own people. However, most of the ones I met don’t seem to mind us being there, and sure aren’t complaining about any money we spend in their country.
The first of your two questions is an important question, but looked at in the wrong way. “Have they succeeded”? Do you mean have they succeeded in getting attention? Yes, they have. But have they succeeded in their ultimate goal, to rid themselves of the capitalist influence and expel all non-Muslims from their country? Absolutely not.
Is any price to high to pay for security? Whether its inconvenience, a little more time at the airport or a few more tax dollars, no price is too high to pay for my family.
But the main point of the column is whether our presence in Iraq, for example, really improves our security. I'm not convinced that it does. If the price we've paid for our involvement in the middle east over the last 20 years guaranteed our security, or even significantly improved it, I would say it was worth the price. But the way I see it, our presence in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, involvement with Iran, etc. have done little if anything to improve our security in the long run (our current involvment in Afghanistan may be the exception).
According to the national budget analysts, we've spent almost $1 trillion in Iraq in less than 6 years; not to mention the lives that have been lost. I think those resources could give a lot more security if they were directed elsewhere.
We can either fight the jihadist in the Middle East, or here on our own soil.
What would the Middle East be like in 10 years if all Coalition forces pulled out, and all peace and construction efforts ceased?
What is the price of security?
the "fight 'em there or fight 'em here" quip is just propoganda. They don't have the resources to project enough power to the US to do anything. Their best shot would be terrorist attacks, and for $1trillion we could do a whole lot to improve security in the US.
Obviously they would have to result to terrorist attacks. However, they have all the resources as far a dollars and weapons go. The rich Saudi's provide the bulk of the funding for the jihadist.
I'm not arguing that we couldn't increase security in the US with the extra dollars, but it is impossible to eliminate all threat. If the threat exists, it can and would be found and exploited.
How much have we spent to improve security with in our country?
I'm not sure how much we've spent on security so far, but the entir annual budget for the department of homeland security is roughly $69billion.
My point is that we're susceptible right now. We do little things to improve security, sometimes we do big things, but I agree there will always be weaknesses. Either way, I don't see how fighting jihadists in the middle east stops them from attacking in the US. In fact, there is a strong argument that our ivolvment may be exacerbating anti-western, or at least anti-american sentiment, and thus fomenting jihadism.
Post a Comment