Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Dwight42

(43 posts)
Wed Feb 25, 2015, 11:45 AM Feb 2015

Terrorism poses no existential threat to America. We must stop pretending otherwise

One of the most unchallenged, zany assertions during the war on terror has been that terrorists present an existential threat to the United States, the modern state and civilization itself. This is important because the overwrought expression, if accepted as valid, could close off evaluation of security efforts. For example, no defence of civil liberties is likely to be terribly effective if people believe the threat from terrorism to be existential.

At long last, President Barack Obama and other top officials are beginning to back away from this absurd position. This much overdue development may not last, however. Extravagant alarmism about the pathological but self-destructive Islamic State (Isis) in areas of Syria and Iraq may cause us to backslide.

The notion that international terrorism presents an existential threat was spawned by the traumatized in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Rudy Giuliani, mayor of New York at the time, recalls that all “security experts” expected “dozens and dozens and multiyears of attacks like this” and, in her book The Dark Side, Jane Mayer observed that “the only certainty shared by virtually the entire American intelligence community” was that “a second wave of even more devastating terrorist attacks on America was imminent”. Duly terrified, US intelligence services were soon imaginatively calculating the number of trained al-Qaida operatives in the United States to be between 2,000 and 5,000.

Also compelling was the extrapolation that, because the 9/11 terrorists were successful with box-cutters, they might well be able to turn out nuclear weapons. Soon it was being authoritatively proclaimed that atomic terrorists could “destroy civilization as we know it” and that it was likely that a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States would transpire by 2014.

No atomic terrorists have yet appeared and intelligence has been far better at counting al-Qaida operatives in the country than at finding them. But the notion that terrorism presents an existential threat has played on.

In 2014, however, things began to change.

In a speech at Harvard in October, Vice President Joseph Biden offered the thought that “we face no existential threat – none – to our way of life or our ultimate security.” After a decent interval of three months, President Barack Obama reiterated this point at a press conference, and then expanded in an interview a few weeks later, adding that the US should not “provide a victory to these terrorist networks by over-inflating their importance and suggesting in some fashion that they are an existential threat to the United States or the world order.” Later, his national security advisor, Susan Rice, echoed the point in a formal speech.

It is astounding that these utterances – “blindingly obvious” as security specialist Bruce Schneier puts it – appear to mark the first time any officials in the United States have had the notion and the courage to say so in public.

And General Michael Flynn, recently retired as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, has been insisting that the terrorist enemy is “committed to the destruction of freedom and the American way of life” while seeking “world domination, achieved through violence and bloodshed.” It was reported that his remarks provoked nods of approval, cheers and “ultimately a standing ovation” from the audience.

Thus even the most modest imaginable effort to rein in the war on terror hyperbole may fail to gel.

Redacted from: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/24/terrorism-poses-no-existential-threat-to-america

29 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Terrorism poses no existential threat to America. We must stop pretending otherwise (Original Post) Dwight42 Feb 2015 OP
but American politicians need an existential threat guillaumeb Feb 2015 #1
+ a gazillion chervilant Feb 2015 #5
Amen to that, but guillaumeb Feb 2015 #6
Yep, and when Mikhail Gorbachev picked up his Cold War marbles hifiguy Feb 2015 #17
To the MIC, terrorism ain't a threat. It's an opportunity. Iggo Feb 2015 #2
It's what butters their bread BrotherIvan Feb 2015 #9
Without a threat, real or imagined, does not matter, there is no fear, - with no fear there is no trillion dollars a year spent. Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #3
Great OP! Octafish Feb 2015 #4
Your welcome Dwight42 Feb 2015 #7
No but it does pose a threat to many good people in the Middle East. Should we not care? pampango Feb 2015 #8
Care all you want but our "help" is nothing of the sort to them or us. TheKentuckian Feb 2015 #11
"Help" does not have to mean using the military. Since when did liberals think that is the only way pampango Feb 2015 #12
What else does it ever mean in this kind of context, except maybe clandestine meddling? TheKentuckian Feb 2015 #14
I just don't want liberals to adopt attitude "you folks are good but you live in a cesspool pampango Feb 2015 #18
I don't recall saying anything about a cesspool and still don't know what "help" even is to you. TheKentuckian Feb 2015 #20
Never mind that! BE AFRAID! Our shopping malls are at threat level orange! GoneFishin Feb 2015 #10
Yes.... and those twin towers falling was made up. Rhinodawg Feb 2015 #13
PNAC wanted a new Pearl Harbor, and they got just what they wanted. What a coinkydink. nt Electric Monk Feb 2015 #27
It's an existential threat to those being brutalized and killed. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2015 #15
Same can be said about any violent act, we need a much bigger picture definition than that. TheKentuckian Feb 2015 #21
You dispatch straw men with such ease, we should put you in charge of dealing with ISIS. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2015 #24
Please do. It is beyond critical my plan be instituted like yesterday. TheKentuckian Feb 2015 #25
Yes. Well. It's a local position. We'll need you on the ground there. Should be safe. Right? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2015 #28
A local position? I do have some logistics experience but I see no reason to go there to TheKentuckian Feb 2015 #29
Kick and Rec. hifiguy Feb 2015 #16
Not an existential threat, but some pretty bad stuff could happen. DanTex Feb 2015 #19
So if Republicans refuse to fund DHS madville Feb 2015 #22
Senator Obama said it best in 2006... wyldwolf Feb 2015 #23
Not from the ME, but the domestic nut jobs who want to support those idiots do. napi21 Feb 2015 #26

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
1. but American politicians need an existential threat
Wed Feb 25, 2015, 11:52 AM
Feb 2015

to distract us from the truth that most politicians are doing absolutely nothing about the real problems in this country.

Like racism,
and poverty,
and wealth inequality,
and climate change,
and polluted water,
and food contaminated with carcinogens,
and the hundreds of thousands of chemical compounds that are poisoning us,

and who wore what to the Oscars.

chervilant

(8,267 posts)
5. + a gazillion
Wed Feb 25, 2015, 12:12 PM
Feb 2015

Somehow, SOON, the Hoi Polloi must understand that this, and most everything else promoted by our co-opted media, is all about the money, and the money is going to a minuscule number of humans on this planet of more than seven billion denizens.

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
6. Amen to that, but
Wed Feb 25, 2015, 12:18 PM
Feb 2015

what about measles? That disappeared quickly when the media decided they needed a fresher, newer threat. A corporate media with a 2 day focus to accommodate our 30 second attention span.

Maybe we could go back to the color-coded threat alert system the Bushies used, along with a Wheel of Fortune type wheel with various "existential threats" on them. Spin the wheel and crank up the media apparatus.

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
17. Yep, and when Mikhail Gorbachev picked up his Cold War marbles
Wed Feb 25, 2015, 06:00 PM
Feb 2015

and went home, the MIC had to find a new demon. It took them ten years, but they somehow managed to do it. Or perhaps invent it.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
3. Without a threat, real or imagined, does not matter, there is no fear, - with no fear there is no trillion dollars a year spent.
Wed Feb 25, 2015, 12:02 PM
Feb 2015

Yet in the land of the brave and a trillion dollars a year to spend - America still virtually drips with fear. Yesterday 62 innocents were blown away by bombs in Iraq....there is a difference between real fear and existential fear spoon fed by the media.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
4. Great OP!
Wed Feb 25, 2015, 12:12 PM
Feb 2015

Thank you, Dwight42! And a hearty welcome to DU!

These days, the only money is in going along with wars without end for profits without cease, even if it means going along with tearing up the Constitution and all it represents.

 

Dwight42

(43 posts)
7. Your welcome
Wed Feb 25, 2015, 12:28 PM
Feb 2015

When I was growing up in the 1950's my Uncle took me to the NY Stock Exchange to see a friend and then off to lunch.

What I mostly remember was the little placards the read; ''You will never go wrong underestimating the American public''.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
8. No but it does pose a threat to many good people in the Middle East. Should we not care?
Wed Feb 25, 2015, 12:34 PM
Feb 2015

Or should we be smart in how we help them?

In a speech at Harvard in October, Vice President Joseph Biden offered the thought that “we face no existential threat – none – to our way of life or our ultimate security.” After a decent interval of three months, President Barack Obama reiterated this point at a press conference, and then expanded in an interview a few weeks later, adding that the US should not “provide a victory to these terrorist networks by over-inflating their importance and suggesting in some fashion that they are an existential threat to the United States or the world order.” Later, his national security advisor, Susan Rice, echoed the point in a formal speech.

Sounds like Obama, Biden and Rice agree with you and me.
 

TheKentuckian

(26,314 posts)
11. Care all you want but our "help" is nothing of the sort to them or us.
Wed Feb 25, 2015, 12:57 PM
Feb 2015

Does it look like we've been helping?

Would the threat even exist without our "help"?

Has our "help" not destroyed tens and hundreds of thousands of lives?

Has our "help" not also done tremendous damage to our own country?

No Great White Father from across the sea, you need to help your fucking self and quit trying to "fix" the world as your nation pulls it's self apart.

We can't even manage to care for our wounded "helpers" when they return. Lots of "helpers" in the street from decades of our "help".

pampango

(24,692 posts)
12. "Help" does not have to mean using the military. Since when did liberals think that is the only way
Wed Feb 25, 2015, 01:28 PM
Feb 2015

to help anyone.

 

TheKentuckian

(26,314 posts)
14. What else does it ever mean in this kind of context, except maybe clandestine meddling?
Wed Feb 25, 2015, 04:48 PM
Feb 2015

What "help" do you mean?

pampango

(24,692 posts)
18. I just don't want liberals to adopt attitude "you folks are good but you live in a cesspool
Wed Feb 25, 2015, 06:35 PM
Feb 2015

and we will not even think about helping you."

If you contend that there are times when we cannot help, I agree. And they will be other times when we can help.

How do we decide who lives in a "cesspool" and which others we might consider helping? That is a tough question.

 

TheKentuckian

(26,314 posts)
20. I don't recall saying anything about a cesspool and still don't know what "help" even is to you.
Wed Feb 25, 2015, 06:45 PM
Feb 2015

I don't object to any number of things done to aid people around the world but in context we are never talking food, medicine, refugee aid, non IMF actual financial support, schools, engineering, water, or clothing really are we?

 

TheKentuckian

(26,314 posts)
21. Same can be said about any violent act, we need a much bigger picture definition than that.
Wed Feb 25, 2015, 06:52 PM
Feb 2015

I guess you demand 100% of GDP go to military and security spending to keep up with your rather ambitious threat matrix.

What do you want here for us to be a nation of Judge Dredds or something?

 

TheKentuckian

(26,314 posts)
29. A local position? I do have some logistics experience but I see no reason to go there to
Thu Feb 26, 2015, 10:06 AM
Feb 2015

pull everyone out but if you feel I need to be there to schedule and load plan then okay but it is just one more person to evacuate and I think the military logistics folks are a bit more up to speed on the required job than someone who dealt with consumer goods and people in former lives.

However, if going is what it takes to get us the hell out of Dodge then I'll do it.

madville

(7,842 posts)
22. So if Republicans refuse to fund DHS
Wed Feb 25, 2015, 06:56 PM
Feb 2015

There will be no increased threat of an attack or event here on American soil?

napi21

(45,806 posts)
26. Not from the ME, but the domestic nut jobs who want to support those idiots do.
Thu Feb 26, 2015, 12:23 AM
Feb 2015

Even the ones they arrested in NY today on their way to Syria said if they can't get to Syria, they'll do the ISIS vengeance HERE!

Other than 911, the terrorists that have caused the most death & destruction in the USA have been domestic.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Terrorism poses no existe...