Thu, September 11, 2003

Well, here we are. I guess we all know what choice video footage Fox News will be broadcasting all day today. The rumor was that our esteemed Commander in Chief was going to launch his re-election campaign officially from the World Trade Center site today, as well. I'm not sure if this is still the plan, or if someone wisely came to the conclusion that it might seem a tad disrespectful to use such an anniversary as a marketing tool. It's kind of a shame we couldn't come up with a better name for the devastating terrorist attacks of two years ago, because the name "September Eleventh" kind of assures that we won't be having a normal day on that date for some time. (And poor Aneesa it's her birthday!)

I'm pleased that there will be a memorial service with victims' children reading the names of those lost in the tragedy. I'm not thrilled that it will be televised, but I suppose the argument can be made that it's a moment of healing for the nation as a whole. I'm a strong proponent for finding a way to collectively move on. Certainly the events should not be forgotten, nor should their grave implications about our place in the world be overlooked. But I'd really love it if we could have a news broadcast without weepy imagery and melodramatic music. Just for originality's sake, it would be great to use the milestone to focus on something else. (For instance, since 9/11/01, Greg the Bunny has come and gone.) I guess there's a better than even chance that at least someone will take the opportunity to look back and see how effective our War on Terror has been, or how our preparedness in the era of Homeland Security compares to the days before the attacks. But I highly doubt that anyone will be evaluating the issue of whether or not we even need to be more prepared.

Hindsight is 20/20, of course. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't do our best to prevent terrorists from wantonly taking lives. Nor that airport security should've been beefed up on September 10th of 2001 and relaxed again on the 12th. But even at our current level of alert, the same acts of destruction could have been carried out. Can you imagine that at the level of planning evident in the 9/11 attacks, the perpetrators couldn't have secured ceramic cutting weapons if stronger security checks had demanded it? Or that dozens of weapons don't already exist onboard commercial aircraft? Wrenching any one of a hundred metal parts out of place and breaking it with a jagged edge will produce a weapon capable of the same as those infamous box cutters. (And, not for nothing, but I passed through security at LAX two weekends ago with a metal key ring containing four large keys in my pocket. I forgot it was there, and it wasn't until I was on the plane that I noticed. No flashing sirens alerted me to the fact.)

My point is that the vague orange alerts and increased airport security (look for anything comparable at our ports or train depots!) do more to serve the interests of our fearmongering presidential administration than they do to protect ordinary Americans. The whole spectacle is designed to support the notion that a strong and sustained unilateral application of force is necessary to protect American citizens from a constant, imminent (if undefined) threat. The notion of this imminent threat (that WMD existed in Iraq and were targeted for use on Americans) was used to prop up the concept of invading Iraq, a pretense so laughable that it was almost immediately discarded in favor of ensuring "freedom" for Iraq's oppressed citizens. (Which was also preposterous. Countries all over the world violate the human rights of their populations, and we're not striding in. Saudi Arabia would be a fine target – they're even involved in sponsoring terrorism which, lest we forget, is what the War on Terror is named after – but we have economic reasons for leaving them alone. North Korea? Well, they actually have WMD and don't seem squeamish about using them.) Given the current media climate, it's a small miracle that the Bush administration is still being needled about the missing WMD in Iraq, but I doubt this issue represents enough to singlehandedly challenge his reelection. These weapons don't exist, they won't be found, and any testimony by Iraqi defectors that suggested they might was based on fear or the wrongheaded notion that such a deception was in some way a clever service of Hussein's goals. But it all worked great for Bush because a fearful American populace is a "patriotic" American populace, and that makes it easy to pursue military action and civil rights rollbacks with minimal challenge.

(Theories abound as to why the administration really wanted to invade Iraq. The "he tried to kill my daddy" rationale proffered by some of our least creative stand-up comics is absurd to a degree that exceeds even the absurdity of the Bush White House, besides being painfully unfunny. The "blood for oil" approach has a ring of truth to it – exacerbated wholly by the Halliburton connection, whether it's on the up-and-up or not – but essentially represents a huge oversimplification. No, the theory I favor was laid out for me very clearly by a friend recently and goes like this: Bush and Rumsfeld want a U.S. military presence in the Middle East in order to keep an eye on things, and it was clear that occupying bases in Saudi Arabia was causing a pretty severe reaction in the Muslim world. Iraq is kind of a mess and they figure it'll fall easily, so it's a good candidate for plowing through and then setting up camp. But, for whatever reason they don't trust the public with this rationale, so they cook up all this business about how Saddam's got nerve gas by the truckload and he's slipping it into your Rice Krispies. It shouldn't surprise me that it worked; in an era where we don't demand reality in our reality programming, why should we look for it in our wars?)

It's all about generating fear. Concocting conspiracy theories is plenty of fun, but I can't stand behind the one I cooked up back at the start of this – that Al Qaeda attacked America at Bush's request, to solidify his soggy numbers after the fake election and give him carte blanche with voters. As I said, I'm not crazy enough to take it seriously, but it does have a bit of a ring to it.

So, it's little wonder that the media seems so unwilling to challenge the Bush administration. Both benefit from a culture of fear in America. One hand washes the other. Nothing says ratings like "there's a common product in your home that may kill you – more after the late movie!" And if there's a vague dark-skinned menace always threatening to kill your family, you might be inclined to think like Britney: "we should trust the president in every decision he makes, and we should just support that and be faithful in what happens." (Clearly Bob Dole was chatting her up on the set of that Pepsi ad; Britney espouses an unblinking faith in President Dubya that I don't even think the ASPCA could get behind these days.)

So, let September 11th be a day of remembrance for the lives lost and a day of mourning for those who loved them. But for the rest of the year, let it not be a dark cloud that hangs over the country, inspiring hazy unfounded anxiety and mindless, credulous faith in authority figures. Don't forget: In his circle, Darth Vader was an authority figure.

THE LATEST FROM POOP READING:

© onebee · all rights reserved