Attack Proves Bigger is Not Better

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Before
any response to the World Trade Center attack is made there is one
question which must be asked. Will it make Americans safer?

Regrettably,
initial responses fail to adequately analyze why these attacks took
place, and risk a response which will not make the world a safer
place, but only lead to more of the same. In fact, US response threatens
to be the same as for virtually every failed government program:
keep pursuing the exact same failed program, but double its budget.

In
the wake of the horrible attack, too many people are using words
to describe the attacks such as “random,” and “unprovoked.” While
it is easy to understand why people want to characterize them as
such, the attacks were anything but random. The Pentagon and Trade
Center were large high-profile targets, symbols and instruments
of American global hegemony.

Nothing
can justify the slaughter of innocent civilians (by either side),
but calling the attacks “unprovoked” tends to lessen our understanding
of why these attacks probably took place. In his address President
Bush declared that “America was targeted for attack because we’re
the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world.”
With respect, however, it is almost certainly NOT the case, that
the Pentagon was attacked because there is too much freedom in the
United States.

Many
have been comparing the attacks to the “unprovoked attack” on Pearl
Harbor, but in the conflict with Japan was far from “unprovoked,”
in that the US and Japan had been in conflict in the Pacific for
years.

So
too with the recent attacks in New York. While they were not justifiable,
they were far from unprovoked (two terms people tend to confuse).
If the attacks did involve Osama Bin Laden or some of his people,
did not the United States launch a missile attack against him in
an attempt to kill him? Isn't that a provocation? Might that not
have emboldened him to take even more aggressive action? Did the
retaliatory missile attacks on Afghanistan and the civilian drug
plant in Sudan make Americans more safe or less safe?

Will
lashing out militarily, now, make the US safer or only escalate
the circle of violence? I am not advocating pacificism but “Those
who live in glass houses should not throw stones,” and the US is
a glass society which has very little to gain and very much to lose
by escalating the rock throwing.

I
would posit that for years now the federal government has been pursuing
a “War on Terrorism,” but that it has been no more successful than
its “War on Drugs” or “War on Poverty.” The result of each of these
wars has been an expansion of government power, restriction of liberty
and very little progress to show for it.

The
Twentieth Century was characterized by the attitude “bigger is better.”
Countries and individuals were in constant competition to build
bigger buildings, bigger bridges, bigger ships, bigger schools,
bigger cities and ever bigger government to pay for them and to
protect us. But those bigger buildings and bigger schools have simply
become targets for criminals all types, and the bigger government
has proved impotent to protect us.

In
recent years the power and budget of the FBI — particularly with
hundreds of new overseas offices — has ballooned. All that new money
and power was supposed to protect us, but it clearly failed. For
all of the US government's money, power and technology, it was defeated
by a small group of men whose weapons appear to have been no more
sophisticated than a razor blade.

Before
the US puts more money into bigger militaries, bigger security agencies
and bigger body counts, we had better take a step back and consider
just what US policies may have provoked these attacks.

The
United States is an imperial power, with soldiers or security personnel
in virtually every country on earth. Through diplomatic, economic
and military power the United States regularly interferes in the
internal affairs of countries around the world. Far too many people
equate military and political hegemony with greatness.

Nearly
two thousand years ago St. Augustine in criticizing those who wished
to try to maintain the Roman Empire wrote:

What
reason, what prudence is there in wishing to glory and greatness
and extent of empire? … Let us suppose the case of two men …
one is poor, or rather of middling circumstances; the other very
rich. But the rich man is anxious with fears, always pining with
discontent, burning with covetousness, never secure, always uneasy.
. . . But the other man of moderate wealth is content with small
and compact estate, most dear to his own family, enjoying the sweetest
peace with his kindred neighbors and friends . . . so in two families,
in two nations, in two kingdoms, this test of tranquility holds
good.

Augustine's
words remain as true today as in 400 AD. What good is it to be an
imperial power when the result is less freedom, higher taxes and
less security? Probably the single greatest thing that can be done
to prevent future attacks is for the United States to abandon interventionism
and mind its own business.

Of
course, I do not expect anyone in power to heed these words, and
fully expect that public opinion will equate disengagement with
letting the terrorists win. Unfortunately public opinion often places
“winning” or “saving face” over saving lives. Former Secretary of
Defense William Cohen on “Good Morning America” the day after the
attack even said use of nuclear weapons might be justifiable in
retaliation; and undoubtedly most Americans would see nothing immoral
in the US incinerating thousands of helpless civilians if their
government supported the attacks.

I
can only hope and pray that those of us whose first allegiance and
citizenship is to the City of God do not fall into the jingo-ism
and bloodlust that often characterizes the City of Man after such
an attack; and that we never forget that “As ye sow, so shall ye
reap.”

Paul
Clark (localsov@bellatalantic.net) is Director of Coalition for
Local Sovereignty (www.localsov.com), a veteran of the Gulf War
and also worked with the mujahadin in Afghanistan.

September
15, 2001

Paul
Clark (send him mail)
is Director of Coalition for Local Sovereignty (www.localsov.com),
a veteran of the Gulf War and also worked with the mujahadin in
Afghanistan.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare