Jump to Content
welcome to my brain. come, have a seat.

{ Email Connor }

Welcome to the blog of Connor Boyack, a 20-something husband, father, web designer, Latter-day Saint, constitutionalist, paleocon, classical liberal, prepper, budding philanthropist, and master's student of political economy. I'm from Poway, CA but live in Happy Valley.


blog RSS feed

How the War on Terror Hurts America

Posted by Connor on June 25th, 2007

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!


photo credit: Devar

The Washington Post published an article in March titled “Terrorized by the War on Terror”, written by Zbigniew Brzezinski. The author makes the case that America has been hurt as a result of this elusive “war”.

Fearmongering is the method with which the “war on terror” is allowed to continue, ever emptying our already empty national coffers, increasingly infringing upon civil liberties, and sinisterly slaughtering innocent people in the crossfire.

The article explains the correlation between the moniker “war on terror” and the use of fear:

Constant reference to a “war on terror” did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue.

What is the natural result of a fearful populace? Widespread disagreement and disunity in what is to be done. We become weakened in our resolve and pathetic in our understanding of what response must be taken to maintain our liberties and God-give freedom—both from enemies within and without. The author continues:

The culture of fear is like a genie that has been let out of its bottle. It acquires a life of its own — and can become demoralizing. America today is not the self-confident and determined nation that responded to Pearl Harbor; nor is it the America that heard from its leader, at another moment of crisis, the powerful words “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”; nor is it the calm America that waged the Cold War with quiet persistence despite the knowledge that a real war could be initiated abruptly within minutes and prompt the death of 100 million Americans within just a few hours. We are now divided, uncertain and potentially very susceptible to panic in the event of another terrorist act in the United States itself.

Are we safer as a result of this so-called “war on terror”? The author thinks not:

That America has become insecure and more paranoid is hardly debatable. A recent study reported that in 2003, Congress identified 160 sites as potentially important national targets for would-be terrorists. With lobbyists weighing in, by the end of that year the list had grown to 1,849; by the end of 2004, to 28,360; by 2005, to 77,769. The national database of possible targets now has some 300,000 items in it, including the Sears Tower in Chicago and an Illinois Apple and Pork Festival.

Much like the pigs on the Animal Farm, our political leaders are making a concerted attempt at keeping the populace in fear. Instead of roaring like lions for liberty, we bleat like sheep for security. ‘Twas not always so…

The author concludes his article with a question:

Where is the U.S. leader ready to say, “Enough of this hysteria, stop this paranoia”? Even in the face of future terrorist attacks, the likelihood of which cannot be denied, let us show some sense. Let us be true to our traditions.

Can anybody say Ron Paul?

Possibly related posts:

5 comments so far. Care to chime in?

Interesting that the guy who created the Mujahideen and Osama Bin Laden and who preached to the USA about what we had to fear from the Soviet Union is now talking about our Culture of Fear.

#1 Curtis | June 25th, 2007 1:19 PM

Well, when thousands of nukes are pointed at your country, you better be scared. It’s perfectly reasonable to be fearful of a specific enemy. Generating a general and vague culture of fear, however, is a different ballgame. I don’t know enough about Brzezinski to know where he stands on all sides of the issues, but I thought the article was a good one.

I also found it interesting that the author is (or was) a member of the highly controversial and openly globalist Council on Foreign Relations…

#2 Connor | June 25th, 2007 1:24 PM

Connor agrees with a liberal?

#3 Dan | June 25th, 2007 7:47 PM

I think the Soviets were used for the same purpose as Osama or Khaddafi or the Ayatollah or any other enemy of the USA has been used for: to justify measures with the american public that would otherwise not be allowed.

#4 Curtis | June 26th, 2007 8:33 AM

Curtis, the Cold War was totally about keeping the military/industrial complex rolling in the money. It also served other purposes which were adventageous to what I classify as Secret Combinations. According to my East German friends, the Communist Regime was never very powerful, they were ALWAYS strapped for cash and considered their military and government leaders weak. They always feared the West was going to militarily take them over. The Cold War served the purpose of leaders ruling by fear on either side of the Iron Curtain.

#5 Kelly W. | June 26th, 2007 10:27 AM

Post a comment

Name (required)

Email (required)

URL

what's new

Featuring 690 posts w/ 9,939 comments.

The lucky author of the 10,000th comment will receive a $50 Kiva gift certificate!

Search the blog
[ Sitemap ]
Recent Comments RSS feed
Most Commented
Recent Posts
Aaaaarchives