War on Terrorism 2028
War Non-issue to this Year's Candidates
New York Times
By Alex Byrdman
One subject that
the candidates in this year's Presidential election will not
be debating is the 27-year-old "war on terrorism."
Critics have long
criticized the terrorism war as selective, ineffective and
a waste of money and resources.
In fact few Americans
realize that the "war on terrorism" is still going on.
Congress routinely passes the expenditures for it in every
budget with little fanfare and even less debate.
For all its flaws
and failures, however, few politicians are willing to oppose
it for fear of being called "soft on terrorism." Top congressional
aides will say privately that everybody in D.C. knows that
it is a joke but we'll never get rid of it because every pol
in America knows that their next opponent would be making
commercials that show those old pictures of the planes crashing
into the World Trade Center back in '01. "You vote against
this money and they're going to make you into some kind of
turban-headed mad bomber" says one aide who requested anonymity.
"It's the goddamn
war on drugs all over again," says another. "That's been going
sixty years now and we have more damn drugs in the country
than ever before, but we keep throwing money at it and we
still have a drug czar. Just because nobody can be seen as
FOR drugs. It's the same with the terrorism war. It's still
in the military budget and they even get an occasional small
assignment but they spend most of their time spying on domestic
The Bureau for
Domestic Tranquility, formerly the Office of Homeland Security,
also still exists although it's name was changed and its mission
curtailed after a group of overzealous OHS agents machine
gunned to death 12 Peruvian nationals and three bystanders
outside the Super Bowl in New Orleans in 2011. The agents,
acting on a tip, thought the Peruvians planned to use nerve
gas in the enclosed Super Dome. A subsequent investigation
revealed that they were Dow Chemical employees who planned
on attending the game as fans.
The terrorism war
began with much fanfare in 2001 in the aftermath of attacks
on New York City and DC It was proclaimed as an international
effort to root out terrorism and in its initial stages provided
some moderate successes. Government forces claimed to have
broken up much of the terror network of exiled Saudi billionaire
Osama Bin Laden and killed Bin Laden himself. Soon, however,
the interest faded and critics charged that the U.S. had entered
into alliances with some of the worst terrorism sponsors on
earth in the mad rush to avenge the attacks. Even the US claim
of having eliminated Bin Laden was called into question in
2025 when a man matching his DNA choked to death on a fig
in Fez, Morocco.
James Strom Thurmond
Jr., Republican front runner for this year's nomination would
say only that terrorism still exists in the world and we'd
better be vigilant. "My father was in the Senate back in '01
when the World Trade Center was bombed," says Mr. Thurmond,
"and he still talks about it to this day when he can remember
who I am."
Among the wide
open Democratic field, only Maryland Senator Karenna Gore
will speak openly about the money spent on the terror war
and she favors increasing it. "I want to show that my father
would have done a better job of fighting terrorism than that
bogus illiterate," says Ms. Gore, whose chances for the nomination
are considered slim.
Thus far only the
minor parties are willing to speak up about the terror war.
"Nothing will ever change unless some people are willing to
open their mouths," says longtime political firebrand and
Green party candidate Monica Lewinski.