July 30, 2002
I'm deathly sick of the buzzword security when recklessly
employed as a scare tactic, much as the particulars of Medicare
are portrayed every fourth year. How might our opposition
forces vocally or otherwise oppose such a powerful abstraction
as security, or its fullest extension, national
security? Are we permanently hamstrung against such a
Many acquaintances, when pressed on this issue, guardedly
admit to me that the War on Terror is no war in the common
usage of the word. However, the other party shoots us down
time and again as we're cautioned that there can be no plausible
disagreement with any administration policy in a "time of
war." Security and War on _______ - the Repubs have out-propagandized
us once again.
I would think that most would agree that added and more vigilant
defenses are required against a new and different enemy in
light of that huge, singular event of September last. I would
go so far to say "increased security."
There's a catch!
Added security does not necessarily presuppose war, but war
does imply an elevation of security measures. Under the current
opposition plan, War on Terrorism conceives her bastard son,
Security, and numerous other progeny - all of whom she names
Security. Where'd they get this brilliant idea? Aren't we
in awe of their innovative gamesmanship?
It's now a given that all future U.S. administrations will
hurriedly classify any tragedy or conflict as war.
Actually, this "War on Terror" is no different than the "War
on Drugs." In either case, the unstated purpose was to convince
the people that the party in power was faced with a formidable
threat of such magnitude to merit such an elevated title,
gaining the respectful attention of a suddenly somber electorate.
Did the Democrats commence this perpetual game of Wars on
_______ with the "war on poverty," and is King George II's
current "War on _______" simply the latest sequel to our own
invention? Whatever happened to the simple matter of plain
"We're at war!"
If one must affix a qualifier to that word, he's manipulating
someone. In that vein, the "cold war" was not war,
per se. It depicted a political temperature based on the fear
and ignorance of what they and we had in store for one another
for tomorrow. Therefore the qualifier, "cold."
The World Wars had no qualifiers, unless one takes exception
to the I and II. However, there was no war "I" until "II"
came along - for in 1920 we knew not that a second was on
its way. Once into the 1940s, we had to differentiate - but
War on Terror and her bastard son, Security, are superb examples
of political (people) manipulation. Is it possible that we
could declare "war" on "war on terror" without perceived collateral
and unintended damages to the child 'neath her skirt? Are
the Democrats resigned to the loss of this battle of abstract
words, having already surrendered much for the cause (or fear)
of security in these nineteen months?
Could these methods of propaganda explain why many other
countries are continually fighting, sometimes with their own
people? Are the entrenched politicians so dependent upon ongoing
conflicts to gain political advantage and the retention of
power? Would it be politically impossible - suicidal - to
mount a war against this "war on terror" and her bastard offspring?
Hypothetically, could a lame-duck congressman - with less
to lose - speak up, saying, "This is no WAR!" - without
the potential fallout being a poison upon the entire party?
Had President Clinton declared a "War on _______" in '95
- after the Oklahoma City bombing - and carried the lies and
exaggerations to their most fearful extremes - would Al Gore
be President today? Could the Democrats have engaged and mesmerized
the public with similar buzzwords the way the opposition party
appears to now be doing? They have some damn good weaponry
aimed squarely and opportunely at a vulnerable people.
Must we - and how do we - convince the American people in
the near future that this ain't no WAR?