That speech joined the litany of famous speeches given by presidents that are forever remembered, and seldom heeded. However, not all comments made by presidents or in our case, secretaries of state, become part of the library of high level remarks.
In 2007, GQ Magazine interviewed former Secretary of State Colin Powell. In that interview, Powell criticized the aggravation of our fears in the post- 9/11 world. He states:
What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it's terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?
He continues:
Yes! We are taking too much counsel of our fears.
This doesn't mean there isn't a terrorist threat. There is a threat. And we should send in military forces when we have a target to deal with. We should also secure our airports, if that makes us safer. But let's welcome every foreign student we can get our hands on. Let's make sure people come to Disney World and not throw them up against the wall in Orlando simply because they have a Muslim name. Let's also remember that this country was created by immigrants and thrives as a result of immigration, and we need a sound immigration policy.
Let's show the world a face of openness and what a democratic system can do. That's why I want to see Guantánamo closed. It's so harmful to what we stand for. We literally bang ourselves in the head by having that place. What are we doing this to ourselves for? Because we're worried about the 380 guys there? Bring them here! Give them lawyers and habeas corpus. We can deal with them. We are paying a price when the rest of the world sees an America that seems to be afraid and is not the America they remember.
The only thing that can really destroy us is us. We shouldn't do it to ourselves, and we shouldn't use fear for political purposes—scaring people to death so they will vote for you, or scaring people to death so that we create a terror-industrial complex.
Powell goes on to outline a solution for the “terror” problem:
It should not be just about creating alliances to deal with a guy in a cave in Pakistan. It should be about how do we create institutions that keep the world moving down a path of wealth creation, of increasing respect for human rights, creating democratic institutions, and increasing the efficiency and power of market economies? This is perhaps the most effective way to go after terrorists.
Where did this most salient critique of the dangers of letting our society become too controlled by our own fear? Here, perhaps, in an expose by investigative reporters from the Washington Post, coined “Top Secret America.”
The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.
Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counter-terrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.
Last year, the government spent $80 billion on civilian and military intelligence activities, an increase of 7 per cent over the year before, and an additional $42.6 billion on the Department of Homeland security.
Further, commenting on this point in an Op-Ed published shortly after the failed terrorist attempt on the Christmas Day 2009, David Brooks highlights the most prominent foiled terrorist plots were foiled not by the Patriot Act, nor by the Transportation Security Administration, but by citizen initiative. Brooks’ argument is founded on a Libertarian belief in the spirit of the individual, but it nonetheless demonstrates our ability to be plagued by fear.
Essentially, Brooks is asking the question, “Are We Safer,” which, incidentally, is the same question asked by PBS and “Frontline” in an episode that aired last month. It is a very difficult question to answer, but given the information of foiled terrorist plots since 9/11, certainly one can find it difficult to defend the need for the vast bureaucracies dedicated to our domestic safety, if not them, then at least the exorbitant amount of funds appropriated to them. Certainly then, the question is what is the value of our safety? If there is no cost, no limit to our nation’s spending in the defense of security, then there are no flaws with the current state of affairs.
Some might call my beliefs repulsive and inhumane, but is it that absurd to seek cost-effectiveness with our domestic security. Is everything that was exposed by the Washington Post and “Frontline” really necessary? Are we in fact safer? Hopefully, the answer is as opaque and obscure as the mission statement of the counter-terrorist industry. We should always remain cognoscente of the warnings of President Eisenhower. And remember:
Essentially, Brooks is asking the question, “Are We Safer,” which, incidentally, is the same question asked by PBS and “Frontline” in an episode that aired last month. It is a very difficult question to answer, but given the information of foiled terrorist plots since 9/11, certainly one can find it difficult to defend the need for the vast bureaucracies dedicated to our domestic safety, if not them, then at least the exorbitant amount of funds appropriated to them. Certainly then, the question is what is the value of our safety? If there is no cost, no limit to our nation’s spending in the defense of security, then there are no flaws with the current state of affairs.
Some might call my beliefs repulsive and inhumane, but is it that absurd to seek cost-effectiveness with our domestic security. Is everything that was exposed by the Washington Post and “Frontline” really necessary? Are we in fact safer? Hopefully, the answer is as opaque and obscure as the mission statement of the counter-terrorist industry. We should always remain cognoscente of the warnings of President Eisenhower. And remember:
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.
First off, great article. It's something that I try not to think about because I often get too frustrated with the beaucratic mess that is DC. Why are we spending billions of dollars on playing Where's Waldo with terrorists all over the world. Although the Post and "Frontline" wanted to get a big rise out of the touchy subject I think they point to a subject that most don't know about.
ReplyDeleteIt's very evident that this mess repeats itself throughout history. Eisenhower was smart to warn us but, of course, we haven't listened to him.
Now that we caught Usama Bin Laden, these programs might get undue justification. As will, undoubtedly, the enhanced interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo Bay and Special Forces/CIA/Drone activity in Pakistan. An argument for the merits/disadvantages of these latter two programs is worth having, but in the meantime let us not fall pray to arguments for the need of these programs based on the capture of Usama Bin Laden. Let us take them on the whole and distinguish between what works and what doesn't work, e.g. DHS vs. CT in Pakistan.
ReplyDeleteI may have been silenced by his capture. I am willing to accept defeat if proven that Terrorism USA aided in his capture. Now, was it worth however many billions? You decide.