Some "Free" Thoughts on the Attacks on America
Time to change this page....
As time has passed, the dominance of the September 11 attacks had dwindled. Some news channels are still titled "America Strikes Back," or similar references to the country's response. But we now get many other stories on the news (at this writing NPR just did a series on the diamond trade), and even the war in Afganistan is receiving less coverage.
A relatively healthy debate has emerged in Congress, helping to prevent the most eggregious attacks on our liberties, and the conservative commentators continue to berate Congressional liberals as traitors. What else is new? Political life has returned at least part way to normal. The economy's in rough shape, but that was true before the attacks. What the attacks did was cause a drastic drop in the price of petroleum, which will do more to stimulate the economy (rising gas prices was a cause of the current recession) than any of the budget fiddling Congress gets around to.
It's interesting how the national debt has so completely dropped from public consiousness. There was some talk of it a year ago, because there wasn't a federal budget deficit to talk about. Bang, bang, boom -- no more surplus, no more worry about saving social security, let's drastically cut our income and start spending lots of money. And they say that will be GOOD for us???! Somebody bloodied our nose so now we're willing to totally trash our children's future (borrowing is always stealing from the future). And what say do these children have??
"But we're at war!" I hear someone say. Oh yeah? Where are the body bags? As of this writing only ONE U. S. citizen had died in this "war." That was a CIA operative killed in the prison uprising in northern Afganistan. We only send in ground troops when it's safe to do so. Talk about cowards! The truth is, even after the tradgedy of 9-11-01, the administration fears that the public doesn't have the stomach for a lot of body bags. If we can attain our goals without body bags, that's all the better for Mr. Bush's political health.
Let me pause here to applaud Mr. Bush for his general restraint and caution. Despite my generally left ideology, I'm willing to admit that he might have been the best man for the job (of the two choices as most Americans saw it; it would be nice someday to have a real choice) given the leadership and restraint he has shown since the attacks. Now if he could just reign in Mr. Ashcroft (he's the one who lost the 2000 election to a dead man, remember).
"Aren't you a pacifist?" someone else asks. Yes. It bugs me to see the bumper stickers that say, "pray for our troops." As already noted our troops are in little more danger than they are during "peactime" military operations. The people who most need prayer are the "foreign" taliban. The leaders who used religion to dupe them into going to Afganistan to fight might not be worth our concern, but these sometimes illiterate and probably largely misled souls don't deserve the treatment they're getting. Why aren't the "religious" right recalling Jesus' admonition to "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"? Is anyone in our country praying for Osama?
Is it in our interest to be concerned about the "foreign" taliban? I think so. Most of them come from Pakistan, and if large numbers of them die at the hands of the Northern Alliance, which will probably have at least some voice in the future government, isn't it likely that the Pakistanis will have a grudge against Afganistan, one that could smolder for years and flash at a very inconvenient time? You must recall that few humans fight on the side of "evil." They all fight for what they believe is right and good. And if we allow great wrongs to happen to the "evil" side, then those who believe that side to be good will come back to haunt us. Witness the former Yugoslavia. Many of the grudges that led to attempted genocide there extend back to a history far older than our country.
Now I'll get politically incorrect and raise a concern about another phenomenon. We've been very ready to give to the families of the 9-11 victims, though there has been some concern voiced that the families of civilians (not police of firefighters) are getting shortchanged. But coming from an affluent country, these people are not as deserving of assistance as are the victims of the U. S. attacks on Afganistan. (I do not say they don't deserve assistance, I only compare their need to others.) We say our war isn't with the people of Afganistan, but where do the American people stand? Are they willing to give as much to funds to rebuild that country as they are to give to funds for the families of 9-11 victims? That's what the world will see, and that's how they'll judge our statements.
Some have applauded the "patriotism" that has resulted from the attacks. But if that means mere flag-waving and a willingness to drop our vigilance and take the governments word for everything, then that's not a good result. Perhaps a more positive result would be to make people aware that our current system for dealing with the failings of humanity isn't working very well. If we start looking for a new and better system -- if we look forward to the extraterrestrial solution promised -- we might have gained from the attacks.
Articles Index
Home