Decius wrote:

k wrote:
I also get that telling people "Don't be afraid." isn't a tack the government can take easily; it's up to individuals to realize that their own fear is the actual problem.

I don't agree.

In World War II we faced threats to our way of life that far surpassed what we see today, and the attitude of politicians at the time was defiant and strong. This sort of leadership contributed to a society that was not afraid and was ready to do what they could to contribute.

[ I ought to have been more precise. I meant to say that it's not as simple as just saying "Don't be afraid." It sounds weak and pathetic, whereas what we have sounds strong but really isn't. As I said, it's opportunistic. Nothing more or less. The people's fear is a good way to acquire power and I think that's what it all boils down to, eventually. True courage would've been to say, "This was a vicious attack, but the American people won't cave into terror... we'll guard our freedoms and our lives." Of course, words like that were said, I suppose, but the actions I've seen don't bear that out.

At the same time, I don't think it makes sense to compare our current situation to WWII, even superficially. Was that a greater threat? I don't know, perhaps so, but look at what we've already lost and you decide how much greater. As you bemoan, we've lost a substantial bit of liberty and sacrificed an awful lot of treasure and goodwill. That's not easily comparable to the threats posed by the Axis which were far more directly comprehensible.

It's like the difference between a gun and cancer. Both are fatal, and it's hard for me to call one categorically "more of a threat." Continuing the analogy, the benefit, I guess, is that you can treat cancer, possibly, which you can't do with a bullet to the head.

You're absolutely right when you say that our current approach -- crash loudly, carrying a big stick, flailing it about while beating your chest -- is a pointless waste of time, money and lives. It's not WWII. There's no well defined enemy. Winning isn't achieved by killing X number of men on a battlefield or destoying an industrial base or incinerating civilians with nukes or sustained carpet bombing. Winning is achieved by undermining the credibility of international terrorist mentality and by not being the evil empire we're purported to be. I'm not saying you don't have to send in the troops sometimes to make it possible for new modes of thinking and acting to take root, but I haven't seen it happen in Iraq, and that's beside the point anyway (my problem with Iraq isn't so much that it's not working as that there was no honesty in the process. As you say, anyone who had a realistic vision of the thing was sacked because it didn't fit the political desires of those in charge... i might have supported the war if it'd been laid out in front of me as a long and difficult mission, but one with a chance of success... it wasn't presented that way).

I'm not certain that we don't have any men fit for the times, but I do certainly agree that the ever-so-common mantra we've heard for years is true -- we live in a different world now. Unfortunately, while our leaders say it to scare us into supporting an old-style war in this new world, I say it to point out that most of the changes have come because *we* made them. There was no mystical event, no change in technology or art or religion. All that happened is that we were attacked and we gave into the idea that that should scare the shit out of us, so much so that we played right into the hands of our enemies by giving up our rights and freedoms and throwing money and lives and bombs at a problem that is, ultimately, more about psychology than actual security.

I think the message should have been that while we do live in a dangerous world, and it's not impossible that we could die in a terrorist attack, living our lives as free, proud, generous and courageous citizens is the best way to fight back. As cliche as it may be, it's still true to say that we're all dying, one day at a time... fear only paralyzes us and prevents our really enjoying what life we do have. So much for that. -k ]

RE: Stratfor: Al'Q wins in London even though the attack was foiled.