Democratic Underground

The War on Terrorism — 2028
October 9, 2001
by birdman

Printer-friendly version of this article Tell a friend about this article Discuss this article

       Terrorism War Non-issue to this Year's Candidates
       New York Times
March 3, 2028

       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 dissidents."

       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.