Editor:
There is an important distinction between terrorism and sabotage. Terrorists aspire to have their victims make emotionally-based decisions that result in more self-inflicted damage than possible by simple sabotage. The goal of the terrorist is to induce governments to make policy decisions which are the equivalent of a mob stampede in self-destructiveness. In that regard, the 9/11 terrorists have won the “war on terrorism” hands-down.
The politicians who unwittingly work in league with terrorists are those who lose all perspective with regard to the seriousness of real sabotage, such as derailing a train or crashing an airplane into a building. Compare, for example, the response of our government to the deaths of the more than 43,000 Americans killed (2.9 million injured, $230 billion cost) each year in auto accidents to the zero deaths by terrorists since 9/11. The damage done to the US by the 9/11 attack was less than the cost in lives and property of about two to three months of auto accidents.
If mandated by the government, electronic stability control systems, available for years from a few car makers, could save the lives of an estimated 10,000 Americans a year, at an added cost of approximately $300 per car. Compare the snail’s pace introduction of ESC systems with the colossal and largely ineffective “security” systems imposed on airline travel alone. The imbalance is so extreme as to suggest insanity — exactly what terrorists aim for. The 9/11 terrorists indeed terrorized us — they caused us to invade a country that was no threat to us and had nothing to do with 9/11. The cost of that invasion has yet to be fully measured, but will be in trillions of dollars and far more lives lost than on 9/11.
Politicians and news pundits unwittingly become the agents of terrorists by exaggerating the “terrorist threat,” confusing it with the threat of saboteurs. These terrorist-promoters inevitably cite the possibility of an atomic attack in a US city. This is supposed to be the ultimate trump card in the discussion, ignoring that this scare supposition has nothing to do with Iraq (except that the war acts as a recruiting force for America-haters), and everything to do with our porous borders.
The real saboteurs are our politicians, especially — but not exclusively — the Republicans among them and their terrorist-in-chief, George Bush. As for the terrorists we have locally, there are about 25 of them working at the Aspen airport examining luggage and passengers and displaying posters citing presumed “threat levels.” Studies have shown that these people are 70 percent ineffective in stopping weapons and bombs. Simple aircraft security systems, such as cockpit doors that cannot be breached, have a vastly higher chance of being effective against hijackers. It appears that theater, not common sense, is the foundation of Homeland Security.
Over 100,000 people die annually because of preventable blunders in hospitals. Over half of the 43,000 killed by automobile accidents could be saved by the use of available advanced technologies. And over 400,000 people die by smoking. Compare the government’s response to these deaths and threats with the zero deaths attributable in the US to the “terrorist threat” since 2001.
It is clear that the government’s response is an effort to manipulate a gullible public into supporting policies that benefit a variety of powerful interest groups who buy political support. Here is a useful measurement: If you want know how corrupt or gullible a politician is, just count the number of times “terrorist threat” pops up in his or her speeches.
I am not unmindful that radical Islam is a threat — but a fraction of the threat presented by drunk drivers, who have killed over 100,000 Americans since 9/11.
When a person’s perceptions of reality become very skewed in one direction, we use the word “unbalanced” as a polite alternative to “insane.” That is where we are now in regard to the “terrorist threat.”
Raymond Auger
Aspen
