Why Are We Suddenly At War With "Islamic Fascists"? A Neologism that Signals a Change in Strategy As Elections Near
By JOHN W. DEAN
from FindLaw
The latest orchestrated war-speak from Bush Administration officials, as they ramp up their oratory for the mid-term election, has recast Islamic militants and terrorists as "Islamic fascists." Thus, as we approach the five-year mark since terrorists attacked Americans on our own soil, the Administration is redefining the enemy — once again.
We have gone from the non sequitur of the "war on terrorism" (A war on "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce for political purposes"?) to the neologism of the "war on Islamic fascists." Or, depending on the speaker, on "Islamofascism." Why the new rhetoric?
The answer is simple: Pure politics. Republicans, for good reason, are worried about losing control of Congress. (For less than rational reasons, many Americans believe Republicans are more effective than Democrats in fighting terrorists.) Should Republicans lose control of Congress, or either chamber, of course, it will mean the effective end of the Bush/Cheney presidency — with the remaining two years of the presidency likely to be consumed by investigations into the activities of the prior six.
For these reasons, the Administration needs to create a more fearsome enemy. That new enemy is Islamofascists — whoever these people may be, they sound more frightening and important than the previously-named enemy. The Administration is aware that Americans are not sufficiently afraid, and that clear thinking will be its demise.
Clearly, Americans Are Less Frightened, And Even Questioning Terrorism's Threat
As the fifth anniversary of 9/11 approaches, a New York Times poll shows that while a high percentage (69%) of New York City residents remain very concerned about another terror attack, elsewhere in the nation, the overwhelming majority (78%) of Americans are not worried about another terror attack. This is not good news for Republicans, who have been winning elections because of their tough talk about fighting terrorists.
In addition, more and more studies are showing that when reality and reason are employed to assess the dangers from terrorists (that is, when fear and emotions are set aside), the likelihood of any given American being killed (or injured) by a terrorist, or in a terror attack, is nominal. The risk of death from an act of a terror is at the bottom of any realistic risk assessment list.
For example, John Mueller, a professor of political science at Ohio State University, asserts in the current issue of Foreign Affairs that "the lifetime chance of an American being killed by international terrorism is about one in 80,000 — about the same chance of being killed by a comet or a meteor."
When answering the question "Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?," Professor Mueller concludes that, "Although it remains heretical to say so, the evidence so far suggests that fears of the omnipotent terrorist — reminiscent of those inspired by images of the 20-foot-tall Japanese after Pearl Harbor or the 20-foot-tall Communists at various points in the Cold War (particularly after Sputnik) — may have been overblown, the threat presented within the United States by al Qaeda is greatly exaggerated. The massive and expensive homeland security apparatus erected since 9/11 may be persecuting some, spying on many, inconveniencing most, and taxing all to defend the United States against an enemy that scarcely exists."
(The rest is here.)
from FindLaw
The latest orchestrated war-speak from Bush Administration officials, as they ramp up their oratory for the mid-term election, has recast Islamic militants and terrorists as "Islamic fascists." Thus, as we approach the five-year mark since terrorists attacked Americans on our own soil, the Administration is redefining the enemy — once again.
We have gone from the non sequitur of the "war on terrorism" (A war on "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce for political purposes"?) to the neologism of the "war on Islamic fascists." Or, depending on the speaker, on "Islamofascism." Why the new rhetoric?
The answer is simple: Pure politics. Republicans, for good reason, are worried about losing control of Congress. (For less than rational reasons, many Americans believe Republicans are more effective than Democrats in fighting terrorists.) Should Republicans lose control of Congress, or either chamber, of course, it will mean the effective end of the Bush/Cheney presidency — with the remaining two years of the presidency likely to be consumed by investigations into the activities of the prior six.
For these reasons, the Administration needs to create a more fearsome enemy. That new enemy is Islamofascists — whoever these people may be, they sound more frightening and important than the previously-named enemy. The Administration is aware that Americans are not sufficiently afraid, and that clear thinking will be its demise.
Clearly, Americans Are Less Frightened, And Even Questioning Terrorism's Threat
As the fifth anniversary of 9/11 approaches, a New York Times poll shows that while a high percentage (69%) of New York City residents remain very concerned about another terror attack, elsewhere in the nation, the overwhelming majority (78%) of Americans are not worried about another terror attack. This is not good news for Republicans, who have been winning elections because of their tough talk about fighting terrorists.
In addition, more and more studies are showing that when reality and reason are employed to assess the dangers from terrorists (that is, when fear and emotions are set aside), the likelihood of any given American being killed (or injured) by a terrorist, or in a terror attack, is nominal. The risk of death from an act of a terror is at the bottom of any realistic risk assessment list.
For example, John Mueller, a professor of political science at Ohio State University, asserts in the current issue of Foreign Affairs that "the lifetime chance of an American being killed by international terrorism is about one in 80,000 — about the same chance of being killed by a comet or a meteor."
When answering the question "Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?," Professor Mueller concludes that, "Although it remains heretical to say so, the evidence so far suggests that fears of the omnipotent terrorist — reminiscent of those inspired by images of the 20-foot-tall Japanese after Pearl Harbor or the 20-foot-tall Communists at various points in the Cold War (particularly after Sputnik) — may have been overblown, the threat presented within the United States by al Qaeda is greatly exaggerated. The massive and expensive homeland security apparatus erected since 9/11 may be persecuting some, spying on many, inconveniencing most, and taxing all to defend the United States against an enemy that scarcely exists."
(The rest is here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home