Now that the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden have been toppled, the ones "directly responsible,? will the American public still back a war on terrorism that promises to be costly and damaging to foreign relations? I think not. Sept. 11 is gone and the US will exercise its incredibly advanced case of Alzheimer's and file it away in the annals of history as a decided victory against the "evil" perpetrators. Even now operations are focused on relatively remote and unimportant islands instead of the ideological and political time bomb of the Middle East.
You can only wave around an attack for so long before the American public proclaims it "old news." Again we return to the complacent state when CNN features little league championships during the first fifteen minutes of a rotation. There is very little immediate threat with Osama dead or in hiding and the Taliban firmly out of power. The US has already forgotten Afghanistan, as evidenced by the refusal of military aid to the new government.
Sure, George plans to go after Iraq, but there is little doubt he didn't plan on something similar anyway. Not to mention his "war on terrorism" spiel already wearing thin on Middle Eastern leaders. How much support we'd have if we started a second Gulf war isn't up for debate, namely very little. Not to mention the utter lack of any evidence to confirm that Iraq is actually funding terrorism. It undoubtedly is, but should be considered less of a hotbed then, oh say, Lebanon.
And never mind the good publicity W. is milking this thing for. Michael Jackson could be elected president and come off good from this. Bush can only use it for so long before it becomes over-used and cliched.
In essence the "big bad men who want to hurt us" are no longer in the limelight. Instead the financial fallout from Sept. 11 and the subsequent retaliation take precedence. With Enron, airlines, and K-Mart collapsing out from under us the economy, might I mention a global and Middle Eastern oil-dependant economy, takes center monologue while terrorism exits stage left.
Though to be fair that isn't quite a monologue, also featuring the deep bass rumbling of the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Which I may point out is detached, in the laymen's view, from any direct threat to the US of A. True it is Middle East, and true it does involve terrorism, but it is never spun by the media as being a related issue and that's how it is accepted.
And thus we come to the underlying issue. Is "the war on terrorism" really necessary in the first place? Was it simply a vengeful nation seeking some kind of retribution for a wound that it never knew could be inflicted? Heightened intelligence gathering, yes. More clandestine operations, yes. More military operations toppling whole governments to get at a single terrorist network, not in the cards. For the very simple reason that it pisses people off.
Robert Baer says it best in "See No" Evil": "...how the Middle East works: You don't recruit an individual; you recruit families, clans, and tribes." In a way that applies to the whole Middle East. If you want to make friends with one Arab country, you make sure to keep on the other's good side. You don't go taking over one country to get to a terrorist organization without getting the locals very worked up.
So, is Sept. 11 going to be airing on the History channel's "Great Blunders in History" soon? I'll bet money on that.
You can only wave around an attack for so long before the American public proclaims it "old news." Again we return to the complacent state when CNN features little league championships during the first fifteen minutes of a rotation. There is very little immediate threat with Osama dead or in hiding and the Taliban firmly out of power. The US has already forgotten Afghanistan, as evidenced by the refusal of military aid to the new government.
Sure, George plans to go after Iraq, but there is little doubt he didn't plan on something similar anyway. Not to mention his "war on terrorism" spiel already wearing thin on Middle Eastern leaders. How much support we'd have if we started a second Gulf war isn't up for debate, namely very little. Not to mention the utter lack of any evidence to confirm that Iraq is actually funding terrorism. It undoubtedly is, but should be considered less of a hotbed then, oh say, Lebanon.
And never mind the good publicity W. is milking this thing for. Michael Jackson could be elected president and come off good from this. Bush can only use it for so long before it becomes over-used and cliched.
In essence the "big bad men who want to hurt us" are no longer in the limelight. Instead the financial fallout from Sept. 11 and the subsequent retaliation take precedence. With Enron, airlines, and K-Mart collapsing out from under us the economy, might I mention a global and Middle Eastern oil-dependant economy, takes center monologue while terrorism exits stage left.
Though to be fair that isn't quite a monologue, also featuring the deep bass rumbling of the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Which I may point out is detached, in the laymen's view, from any direct threat to the US of A. True it is Middle East, and true it does involve terrorism, but it is never spun by the media as being a related issue and that's how it is accepted.
And thus we come to the underlying issue. Is "the war on terrorism" really necessary in the first place? Was it simply a vengeful nation seeking some kind of retribution for a wound that it never knew could be inflicted? Heightened intelligence gathering, yes. More clandestine operations, yes. More military operations toppling whole governments to get at a single terrorist network, not in the cards. For the very simple reason that it pisses people off.
Robert Baer says it best in "See No" Evil": "...how the Middle East works: You don't recruit an individual; you recruit families, clans, and tribes." In a way that applies to the whole Middle East. If you want to make friends with one Arab country, you make sure to keep on the other's good side. You don't go taking over one country to get to a terrorist organization without getting the locals very worked up.
So, is Sept. 11 going to be airing on the History channel's "Great Blunders in History" soon? I'll bet money on that.
Before you insult someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you insult them, you will be a mile away and have their shoes.
