A Little Security Is A Dangerous Thing
I listened to President Bush's speech last night as I drove home from work. He talked about why we are in Iraq, but as always as far as I'm concerned, very unconvincingly. He said that Saddam Hussein posed a risk we couldn't afford to take, and that "We are safer now, but we are not yet safe."
As I look at the exploding Middle East, I have trouble believing in Bush's words. The world does not seem like a safer place to me. And besides, I wonder: How safe can an open, democratic, free society ever really be? Is safety worth the price of any of those freedoms enshrined in our Constitution?
I heard someone else on the radio yesterday morning, talking about how there are still security problems in our country, and pointing out how Israel, for example, has much more stringent measures. I was shocked. I remember my trip to Israel two years ago. I remember the giant wall between Israel and the West Bank, the razor-wired checkpoints, the way I was questioned at the Taba border because of being half-Egyptian, the armed guard in Jerusalem who demanded to check my bag, as well as my friend's, before he would allow us in to a McDonald's. Is that the kind of society we want to make for ourselves, so that we can be "safe"?
God, I hope not.
I am not saying we should not have any security measures, of course. But let's not kid ourselves... complete and total safety is an illusion in a society that acknowledges the free will of individuals.
As I look at the exploding Middle East, I have trouble believing in Bush's words. The world does not seem like a safer place to me. And besides, I wonder: How safe can an open, democratic, free society ever really be? Is safety worth the price of any of those freedoms enshrined in our Constitution?
I heard someone else on the radio yesterday morning, talking about how there are still security problems in our country, and pointing out how Israel, for example, has much more stringent measures. I was shocked. I remember my trip to Israel two years ago. I remember the giant wall between Israel and the West Bank, the razor-wired checkpoints, the way I was questioned at the Taba border because of being half-Egyptian, the armed guard in Jerusalem who demanded to check my bag, as well as my friend's, before he would allow us in to a McDonald's. Is that the kind of society we want to make for ourselves, so that we can be "safe"?
God, I hope not.
I am not saying we should not have any security measures, of course. But let's not kid ourselves... complete and total safety is an illusion in a society that acknowledges the free will of individuals.
posted by grackyfrogg @ 8:07 AM
10 Comments:
At 1:07 PM ,
eldila said...
I totally agree. (Not to mention that it's just a little questionable to exploit people's legitimate emotional responses to fuel your own dodgy bandwagon.)
At 4:51 PM ,
usarottweiler said...
Hakay…follow this if you will, we ARE safer because we are now very AWARE of the threat. The United States will NEVER be 100% safe because none of us want to live in a police state. Israel does business exactly as any sane people would, tiny, and surrounded by many medieval monsters bent on their destruction.
Your final sentence hits the nail squarely on the head g
doggie
At 5:05 PM ,
usarottweiler said...
P.S. The medieval monsters really need another hobby, other than taking everything they read literally, and of course,their all time favorite, treating women like dogs.
dog getting ready to fix a drink
At 5:42 PM ,
grackyfrogg said...
hullo doggie, nice to see you back! been awhile.
well, of course we are more aware of the threat--after all, we have exacerbated it to a terrifying degree. i also firmly believe we have contributed to a critical deterioriation of a region never known for its stability at the best of times (whenever those might have been), based on our own egregious miscalculations of the mentality and worldviews of a completely different culture and a completely different enemy.
so nope, i don't think we're safer now. but it's a nice idea.
as for israel, the situation gains complexity when you are actually in israel, and in the west bank. i understand why israel's security measures are so stringent, and i don't blame them for protecting themselves--but i also understand the reasons that cause the reasons for the stringency, and therein may lie some blame for israel, and perhaps other nations as well. my perspective on the israeli-palestinian conflict changed after my brief travels there, during which i heard (and saw) a side of the story you don't often get in the western media, and it made me think.
i am not condoning terrorism, of course, in saying all this. i'm just saying that when it comes to the middle east, there is nothing "simple" about any situation. and we in the west have grossly and consistently underestimated the deep-rootedness of islam and its influence in all levels of middle eastern society, not to mention the pride of a people that is not at all western in either thought or action--even if they do have mcdonald's, and even if they do wear t-shirts and baseball hats. the problems we are running into in iraq, afghanistan, and across the board can be traced back in no small measure to our unwillingness to face our own ignorance and lack of foresight.
At 1:55 PM ,
squawpeak said...
“Is safety worth the price of any of those freedoms enshrined in our Constitution? No, 100% safety is, as you said an illusion”
Our safety is worth denying citizens of non-democratic states under the sway of deeply rooted Islam access to our open societies until they demonstrate that the price of admitting them is not death of innocent civilians.
“I was shocked. I remember my trip to Israel two years ago. I remember the giant wall between Israel and the West Bank, the razor-wired checkpoints, the way I was questioned at the Taba border because of being half-Egyptian, the armed guard in Jerusalem who demanded to check my bag, as well as my friend's, before he would allow us in to a McDonald's. Is that the kind of society we want to make for ourselves, so that we can be "safe"?”
No, of course it isn’t. The disturbing “complexity” of it though is: As long as our (or the Israeli’s) neighbors are allowed into our society – for jobs, to purchase goods etc…- AND choose to kill innocent civillians rather regularly in a vain attempt to settle their political grievances, they call the tune. Don’t they? It is their resorting to murder which denies the kind of society we want, not our defense of innocents against the murderers.
It seems we are presented a choice in the near term: Take stringent security measures so that we may safely allow people from non-democratic, non-open societies to enjoy the benefits of democracy and open society by crossing borders (borders they must cross because Islamic nations don’t allow either democracy or open society), OR do not allow passage of such people into free societies.
Wouldn’t forcing them to confront the full oppression of their own regimes - without the mitigation of visits to infidel shopping malls for both jobs and goods they cannot get at home - help to weaken Islam’s oppressive grip on women, free-speech, freedom of religion et al..? As long as they aren’t confronted with the real price of sharia – because they can access another society for work (or bombing) why would the deep-rootedness of Islam ever change?
“of course we are more aware of the threat--after all, we have exacerbated it to a terrifying degree”
What does it say about the people and culture we are dealing with that the rule is: If we defend ourselves, they will only attacking us more fervently. If we offend them, they will kill us? Should we not defend ourselves? Should we forgo the very freedoms you mentioned which are enshrined in our Constitution (speech, religion) so that they are not “offended” and we are not killed? What alternative do you imagine will be effective? How can we protect the lives of my two and four year old, actually preserve their rights, chiefly to life, when every action we take which is not conversion and submission exacerbates these people?
“but i also understand the reasons that cause the reasons for the stringency, and therein may lie some blame for israel.”
Before discussing this any further, can we agree that no reason justifies the killing of innocent civilians? If we do agree on this, no blame for the protective security measures (resulting from innocent civilians being blown up in McDonald’s, on buses, etc…) can be laid at the feet of Israel, because what they are reacting to (murder of civilians) is never an acceptable means to achieve a political end, EVER. You may blame Israel for angering others politically, but you may not blame them for others murdering their citizens, or for the security measures they are forced to take to protect those innocent civilian lives. Terrorists choose murder as their political response, Israel is forced to deal with that choice. Basically, Israel is dealing with a civilizationally-retarded group of people who don’t comprehend how to play well with others. The blame for civilian death and resultant security measures is to be laid in whole at the murderers’ door. Do you agree? If not, why not?
“I heard (and saw) a side of the story you don't often get in the western media, and it made me think.”
This would be a good post. What did you see, and how does it change the basic premise that Israel 1) has right to exist, 2) has a duty to protect its citizens, and 3) is forced into stringent security measures because their neighbors are infected with an authoritarian, misogynistic, murderous ideology?
Again, not to beat a dead horse, but the security wouldn’t be necessary if the “other side” in the political disagreements were rational and chose the political process of negotiation, compromise, and legal agreement over bombs, beheadings and burkas. Two reasonable parties to a disagreement is simply not the reality of the situation. One party respects rule of law, democracy, transparency, rights for women, freedom of religion etc..and one does not choose any of the above.
“we in the west have grossly and consistently underestimated the deep-rootedness of islam and its influence in all levels of middle eastern society, not to mention the pride of a people that is not at all western in either thought or action”
GrackyFrogg, we westerners have, but many are no longer underestimating. For those with eyes to see, understanding the nature of Islam is clear. “The tree is known by its fruit” – Matthew 12:33. The fruits of oppression, economic and academic decay, women owned as chattel, murder and lawlessness are none the civilized world should tolerate at its table. When they are placed there, we have one response if we are to preserve civilization – throw them on the compost pile to decay and be used as fertilizer for those things worth growing in humanity’s garden.
At 4:08 PM ,
grackyfrogg said...
hello squawpeak! thank you for such a reasoned, thoughtful post. let me see if i can clarify a few of my points, and in so doing, hopefully respond at least in part to yours.
first, i agree that a) government has a responsibility to try to make its citizens safer; b) that the killing of innocent civilians is never acceptable; c) that israel has a right to exist; d) that islam has shown itself in many ways to be oppressive, cruel, intolerant, unjust, and violent; and e) terrorism is evil.
so far, so good.
now i would just ask these questions in response to the ones you raised: does palestine have a right to exist? is israel ever to blame for reacting to violence with violence that claims lives of innocent palestinian civilians? was israel justified in allowing the encroachment of illegal settlements in palestinian territory, or in siezing property, etc., belonging to palestinian refugees?
in regards to the war in iraq, i ask: can democracy logically and philosophically be forced onto a people that has not been adequately prepared in its own ideology? can we come against a people with thousands of years of a different kind of history than we have experienced in the west, and expect to change them by force to a western mindset? and if in fighting against terrorist enemies we find that violence exponentially breeds more violence, oughtn't we to consider that perhaps violence is not an appropriate tactic against an ideology that obviously embraces it?
finally, i ask this: what is the level of safety we are trying to achieve? if we agree that it is impossible to eradicate terrorism (and surely we must agree on this, in a world where free will and fallen humanity exist), then what are we actually trying to accomplish? if you answer, democracy in the middle east, then i refer back to my questions in the previous paragraph. and i also would point out, that was not the initial rhetoric that surrounded our justifications for an iraq war--instead it was weapons of mass destruction. when those became chimeric, we began to change our tune accordingly.
At 1:42 PM ,
squawpeak said...
Hello GrackyFrogg, thank you for your reply, and for having received my post in the spirit I intended – thoughtful discussion about threats we face, not a game of gotcha, or an blogified version of “Crossfire!”.
You pose good questions, and I’ll answer as best I’m capable. With respect, the current state of things is not acceptable. At some point (probably not today, but keep this end in mind) we will have to flesh out the best answers we are capable of today, put down our coffee, and actually DO something. Knowing it will be, as all human endeavors are, flawed and imperfect. As long as that flawed action results in improvement, we will have succeeded, leaving the next step for my childrens’ generation. On to your questions…
“does palestine have a right to exist? “
Easy answer: yes, assuming they can exist peaceably, and not as a terrorist sanctuary from which to launch incessant attacks on Israel. The harder answer: Palestine did exist as a British mandate after WWI, and included what is now Israel, disputed territory, Gaza & the West Bank, the Golan Heights and Jordan. It was a pluralistic mix of Arabs & Jews. To the best of my understanding, this Palestine was partitioned because the Arabs refused to live in a democratic state with Jews. Israel was created, as was “the Hashemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan”. The Jordanians are, ethnically-speaking, the same people as today’s “Palestinians” with the distinction being they refused – at time of Israel’s creation by the U.N. – to absorb their refugee brothers and deal with the challenges (where will they live, work, and who will have to give up land, work etc…). So, to wax Clinton-esque, the answer to your question is, it depends on the definition of “Palestine”. And whether in formulating a solution, we are ready to knock on Jordan’s door for part of the lands granted to today’s refugees.
I ask a question in return: Do you believe that the Arab and/or Persian Islamic states surrounding Israel will accept it’s existence and not use newly created “Palestine” as yet another redoubt for the their terrorist proxies to work toward Israel’s removal from the map?
“is israel ever to blame for reacting to violence with violence that claims lives of innocent palestinian civilians? “
My understanding is that typically terrorist attacks (which we agree are never acceptable, no matter the political grievance) are launched by Hamas & Hezbollah from within Gaza, West Bank, and southern Lebanon with tacit approval and/or support of the local people. Israel (as you agreed) has a duty to protect it’s citizens from unprovoked attacks. As such, it must respond militarily against such terrorist attacks. The terrorists are given safe-haven (or take it) from local populations - who could refuse support, and report their locations so they can be rooted out. So, when in a justified defensive military action Israel accidentally claims the lives of innocent palestinian civilians who are not targets, the terrrorists and the local populations allowing their presence in civilian areas are to blame as they set their own stage. As I discussed in the last post, whether in Israel or elsewhere, terrorists call the tune because 1) they choose the time & place of attacks on civilians and 2) they choose where they hide, and whether or not they conform to the Geneva conventions we all like to talk about. By choosing to act without sanction of any nation-state, without uniforms, without accountability, and to TARGET civilians instead standing armies; to hide in Mosques, civilian residences, etc…they set the table.
It is horrific that this results in civilian casualties (where civilians aren't the target), but I think, unjust to lay the blame for accidental casualties at the feet of Israel when it is defending itself against such an enemy.
You ask whether reacting to violence with violence is the answer. I ask you, if you were Israel’s Prime Minister, what would you do instead to protect your citizens from unprovoked rocket attacks? Until we can answer this question with a real alternative that will produce the result of securing safety to civilian populations, we have no other choice.
“was israel justified in allowing the encroachment of illegal settlements in palestinian territory, or in siezing property, etc., belonging to palestinian refugees?”
On its face, no. However, what was the context? Was the encroachment/siezure of strategic ground (e.g. orchards/high-ground) to take territory from which terrorist rockets were being fired at civilians with minimal loss of life? Was the siezure unprovoked, or the response to violence - initiated by terrorists - as a means of depriving Hamas or Hezbollah of strategic topography? Maybe we’re onto something. Isn’t seizing strategic land as a defensive measure to protect innocent civilians better thatn military actions resulting in collateral civilian casualties?
”can democracy logically and philosophically be forced onto a people that has not been adequately prepared in its own ideology? can we come against a people with thousands of years of a different kind of history than we have experienced in the west, and expect to change them by force to a western mindset?”
Great question. In a short time-frame, probably not. As you suggest, our own democracy is the fruit of 1) the Renaissance followed by 2) The Enlightenment, and the slow, steady development of philosophical, religious and political thought throughout those periods.
It took hundreds of years to develop what we have today (a thousand even, as our jury concept is rooted in Viking precedent) so the idea that we’ll create a drive-through democracy happy-meal in Iraq in two or three years is suspect.
That said, look at the example of longer-term commitment and the results in India. They had “thousands of years of a different kind of history”, then experienced several generations of British-imposed democracy with the accompanying free-speech, freedom of religion, rule-of-law, governmental & judicial institutions.
That experiment was successful…suggesting that as opposed to giving up on Iraq as a democracy, maybe we need to drop our A.D.D. mentality and acknowledge that the goal is achievable, but will take a long time and a lot of effort to achieve.
India’s democracy is objectively better for more people than the authoritarian systems of their neighbors China, Iran, Burma, etc…
My point? Given the significant improvement in the lives of the average citizen in India (1 Billion people), the colonial period - even with grave injustices on an absolute scale - has produced an undoubtedly positive net gain.
Indians today would be loathe to give up their system today if they could go back in time and skip their colonial period.
So, if one is a person who truly values inherent rights endowed on ALL humans by our Creator, doesn’t one have to support even short-term pain to secure those unalienable rights for as many humans as possible?
Put another way, once you are aware of the denial of such rights; of the oppression of women, the denial of free-speech, of religious freedom, what does that say about your real priorities?
What is more important to you: reserving a cultural tradition of oppression, religious & academic slavery? Or to stand up and bear the yoke of extremely difficult transformation that will secure God’s blessings to the oppressed. To break that thousand-year old chain of starvation of those rights?
“if in fighting against terrorist enemies we find that violence exponentially breeds more violence, oughtn't we to consider that perhaps violence is not an appropriate tactic against an ideology that obviously embraces it?”
We should consider that, strongly. Until we actually have an alternate tactic that works though, we owe innocents protection by the best means at our disposal. If we have that tool, then we have the moral imperative to use it. Conversely, there can be no moral imperative to do a thing you are incapable of. I don’t think we have the tool yet.
This question is a great frustration to me in conversations because I have yet to hear an actual, effective alternate advanced by those who posit it. The ball tends to be dropped at “we should use another tactic”. Like what? Honestly, I am open to any workable alternate that can deliver reasonable security. I have yet to hear one.
The Oslo accords failed as a political solution because one party to the accord is not rational, negotiated in bad-faith and never intended that a lasting resolution be reached. What can we do differently when our negotiating “partners” aren’t really committed to peaceful, compromise solutions, but to the elimination of Israel?
This applies generally to Islamic terror because their desired end is never peaceful co-existence but subjugation, humiliation and domination of “the infidels”. If they choose violence, we have two choices. Join the fight or surrender (certainly our freedoms, maybe our lives).
“i ask this: what is the level of safety we are trying to achieve? if we agree that it is impossible to eradicate terrorism (and surely we must agree on this, in a world where free will and fallen humanity exist), then what are we actually trying to accomplish?”
Again with the utmost respect: Gracky, I have two children. What I am trying to accomplish is to preserve their right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” with all that entails. I am trying to accomplish a world where they are REASONABLY safe to walk to school, to take a trip to Washingon D.C. to learn about our nation and how it works, to attend a football game in a 70,000 person stadium – all without any significant risk of being incinerated by a plane-full of jet fuel; gassed with VX, sarin, or mustard gas; or being forced into Islam when conscience leads them to follow Christ.
Surely this is not too much to expect, or too radical an agenda, is it? We can achieve this, the question is, do we value our way of life enough to preserve it for ourselves? Will we stand up and say “enough”, and, when necessary, meet violent attack with the violence necessary to preserve our own God-given rights? I know it isn’t an easy reality to countenance, but in a world where, as you say, “free will and fallen humanity exist” we are faced with confronting some existential threats posed by the free will exercised by Islamic radicals. The answer is sometimes, regrettably, violence.
At 3:16 PM ,
grackyfrogg said...
hi again, squawpeak. it's always a pleasure to hear from you, and know that we can have a respectful discussion, even if we disagree.
i think we are in agreement more than not, however. i just happen to look back at the israeli-palestinian history and see it slightly differently. when i talked to palestinian people in the west bank, i realized that they genuinely feel that israel is an oppressive regime who displaced them with the help of western nations. you may say their perspective is clouded by their hatred of israel, whereas i might say their hatred of israel was heightened by what happened after WWII. if there is one thing i learned from the very brief time i spent in that region, it's that neither side will ever back down or apologize for anything to the other. ever. and that's the middle east for you.
i freely admit that i am not as knowledgeable about the history of this region based on textbooks, etc.--most of my understanding is based on anecdote, observation, newspaper and magazine articles, and trying to see both sides of the question as best i can. i still have a lot to learn, and i appreciate your taking the time to include historical references in your post.
but i think what i am mostly trying to express here is my concern that we have contributed to an increasingly disastrous situation in the middle east, which we were not prepared for, by going to war against iraq. and that bush's words are more often than not simply empty rhetoric that has a tenuous (at best) foundation in reality.
perhaps we shouldn't bring the israeli-palestine conflict into this discussion... yes, there are connections in that islamic fundamentalism is at root in many terrorist actions, but palestine's issue is more complicated by their feeling of being an occupied country that is being consistently attacked by israel. so let's leave that one aside for a moment, and talk about the broader issue of how we find ourselves in this war against terror in the first place.
terrorism has been making headlines ever since i've been alive. so what brought us to this point of diving in NOW and trying to democratize a middle east that has shown itself repeatedly to be unready or unwilling to receive western ideology?
well, there was 9/11, of course. but i do not believe, and never did, that a pre-emptive war against iraq was the solution to dealing with terrorism in the world because i don't believe it was an appropriate response to 9/11. afghanistan, yes, i could understand our retaliation there. but moving on to iraq... not so much. there has been enough evidence reported since then that called into question every single one of the justifications put forth by the bush administration. we can talk about hindsight being 20/20, but frankly, i never thought the evidence was very good, even if hussein had had WMD. heck, WE have WMD, and we have proven that we are not going to listen to the U.N. either when it doesn't suit our interests. so what if another nation moved pre-emptively against us, on the same basis we moved against iraq? after all, the middle eastern rhetoric is that the U.S. is a terrorist nation!
obviously i am not saying i agree, nor do i think it's true. but from the middle eastern perspective, israel and the west are trying to take over the middle east by force, and so, they will fight back. violence against violence, yes? please keep in mind, i am NOT saying they are right or logical in this, i am simply illustrating that our reasons for starting a pre-emptive war set a precedent that could potentially be used against us later.
alright, so we can say all we want about how we have taken steps to making this world safer by taking on terrorists, but the fact is, i think in some ways, we have played into their hands--after all, their numbers are increasing, not decreasing, and now we have a bigger threat with iran, north korea, and an increasingly uniting islamic fanaticism across middle eastern nations.
believe me, squawpeak, i understand your concerns for your children, even if i don't have any children of my own yet. i have five brothers and sisters, and my youngest brother is in training as a fighter pilot in the military. i care a great deal about the safety of my family. i care very deeply that my brother at some point could be called upon to be a part of this conflict, and could lose his life in it. and while the rhetoric that surrounds the current war is all about peace, justice, and democracy, i don't really believe that is what is being accomplished over there. but i suppose you and i will have to wait for history to prove either of us right or wrong. and God knows, i fervently hope that you are the one who is right in the end.
to reiterate: my antipathy toward this war is not because i think terrorism is ok, or acceptable; i simply don't believe it was the right course of action, based on the evidence, and i never have. my distrust of bush and his administration is not because i don't believe democracy and freedom are important and worth fighting for; it's because in many ways the administration has shown itself to be willing and even eager to stretch constitutionality to its breaking point in the service of their political rhetoric.
in this, you and i may just have to disagree... and i am glad that we are able to do that in a manner that is considerate and respectful of each other's opinions.
finally, i will grant your excellent point that alternatives are in rare supply. i admit i don't have a good alternative to offer, at least for the situation as it stands now. my solutions involved us not having gone to war in the first place! but there is little good done to say what should have happened, or what would have been a preferable course of action. we can only deal with where we are now.
and so, i am forced to acknowledge that we must stay the course--but that doesn't mean i'll like it, or that i won't express the fact that i don't like it.
i read a quote in an article the other day in which someone said (i paraphrase), "The U.S. has gotten itself into a situation where it cannot stay in Iraq, and it cannot leave." that's how i see it, too. and it's a scary position to be in.
thank you again for the conversation.
sincerely,
grackyfrogg
At 8:15 AM ,
squawpeak said...
GrackyFrogg,
Thanks for the conversation and thoughts, it's refreshing to actually have dialogue.
I respect your sentiments on Iraq. What puts me in the other camp is that Hussein declared he had WMD in 1991, and then violated the 1991 cease-fire by repeatedly refusing the unfettered access required for either UNSCOM or UNMOVIC to verify that they had been destroyed (as was stipulated by the U.N. Security Council, not the U.S. unilaterally).
By his refusal, he denied the U.N. the positive assurance that the WMD did not exist any longer.
In fact, it was not the Bush administration that first pointed out the grave seriousness of these violations, it was a unanimous Senate bill signed by President Clinton in 1998 after Hussein refused an cooperation at all with the U.N. inspection teams.
The bill said, "[i]t should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
Oddly, no one objected to Clinton & the 1998 Congress's "rhetoric", only to a leader who actually backed it up.
In any case, the preceeding is only to give a little reasoning for my position.
Clearly, we will have to wait to see if the goal of democratization can be achieved, and it is certainly not a given. Success will require committment of both will and resources for much longer than any "cakewalk" talk would have implied.
Thanks for the discussion.
Regards,
squawpeak
At 8:29 AM ,
grackyfrogg said...
thank YOU. as you say, it's refreshing to be able to talk about these things without feeling like one is on some awful talking-head political show, where the main goal just seems to be, "let's see who can yell the loudest!" gah.
you definitely seem to have a lot of knowledge about political history in this country, and i respect your opinions. i didn't really start paying attention to current events/politics until the last 8-10 years; in 1998, i had just graduated from college and life was all about me me me!! i don't even remember what clinton was saying back then! embarrassing...
(not that life still isn't about me, of course. but it's finally starting to be just a teensy bit more about other people, too. yes, God still works miracles. :) )
anyway, thanks again.
Post a Comment
<< Home