Are We Really Fighting Them Over There So We Don't Have to Fight Them Here?
The tragedy at Fort Hood last week raises the question of whether we are indeed fighting in Afghanistan in order to protect ourselves from having to do so on our own soil. Here was a man trusted by the military in the middle of what had been one of the safest places on earth, yet he murdered 13 people and injured 38. Surely if he accomplished this, no matter where you come down on his motive, it is not inconceivable that a coordinated enemy could do this kind of damage in a number of less well protected locations -- simultaneously.
On 60 Minutes in a piece called "Sabotaging the System," we learned of the extraordinary number of cyber attacks perpetrated on the U.S. everyday. A sophisticated attacker could bring down a U.S. power grid. And worse, the U.S. is not prepared for such an attack. This same interview revealed that an Internet "Pearl Harbor" occurred in 2007 when a volume of information the size of The Library of Congress was stolen. Last November someone hacked into the CENTCOM network for two hours.
Why have the American people been kept in the dark about these events? The answer given on 60 Minutes: "The previous administration didn't want to admit that they'd been rolled in 2007. There's a disincentive to tell people things are going badly."
What about the current administration? They don't seem to mind telling us things are going badly in Afghanistan and that we need to send more troops there. But we're not supposed to be told that it's now possible for an enemy via cyber snooping to alter the functionality of a nuclear weapon. It makes you wonder if Glenn Greenwald is right -- that we are simply a country perpetually at war -- the old version. We are stuck in this habit no matter how little sense it makes -- even when the "war" has no identifiable front and no clear definition of victory. For this purpose we're willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands of our soldiers.
We need to wake up. The war is clearly not just over there. It's here. And it has been for some time. Yet we sit unprepared, focusing our resources on bad guys thousands of miles away -- not seeming to know where they are, whether they'll stay away once we get rid of them or even what good it does us to escort them out.
Dr. Reardon also blogs at bardscove.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
American men and women arefighting, killing and dying in Afghanistan, Iraq, possibly Pakistan and very likely will be in Iran to make good on promises the U.S. government made many years ago to the oil, defense and finance industries. Ideology has nothing to do with any of this mayhem. It's all about profit.
Thats not very promising news to the DHS. And I don't discredit those who are not in military but are CIA along with FBI who actually foiled some terror plots recently. So no I don't think we fight them for any reason of defense.
Using the Fort Hood incident to springboard this discussion is unacceptible. Hasan clearly suffered psychological difficulties and therefore was not a terrorist. The deaths at Ford Hood are not comparable to 'cyberattacks.'
Furthermore, this hardly responds to those who want to continue the Afghan war "to keep us safe over here," since that argument is bogus - for our politicians and military,leadership, the Afhan war has to do with global political positioning and economics, while for supporters of the war at the grass roots, its about killing dark skinned people who don't believe in Jesus.
National security is not an issue in this debate. Confronting American greed and bloodlust is.
We as a society love us some war. How many people have been devastated by the "War on Drugs"? We love to give the "War" label to things such as cancer, when we'll never have a cure with this "War". We think we can control everyone everywhere, and it will be our downfall if we allow these so-called "wars" to continue.
This is not war. The last real war we fought was the first Gulf War. This is nothing more than War Profiteering at the expense of our loved ones blood and guts.
Absolutely on point Ms. Reardon ! In fact, I sent a note to President Obama concerning this very matter several days ago. I encourage everyone to send a note to Mr. Obama as well concerning american troops being shipped to the middle east to fight war without purpose. We need to protect our country here, at home. We need to spend our trillions rebuilding the infrastructure of our cities and ports. Thank you for your super post.
"A sophisticated attacker could bring down a U.S. power grid. And worse, the U.S. is not prepared for such an attack."
No worse we removed the human switches for electronic ones without isolating the electronic ones. Doh!!!! Why? saved money gave more control.
Probably the same reason you can adjust a nuke.
The great irrationality is that any amount of fighting here or there will stop us from dying from time to time. We're on top, and when you are on top people come for you, some succeed. The boxer rebellion would have scared the street's of london if it happened in the modern world. We can expect no less. If you want to prove you are something in this world you defeat the USA somehow or another. Price of being king of the hill.
We will never be completely safe and no politician dares say it. Should say alot about us and them. As long as they dare not say it, they have to undertake foolish actions that make us feel safer and in control.
Dear MS. Reardon,
I fully agree. Whatever happened on 9/11 was a crime. Instead of treating it like a crime, we mandated a responsible nation. Then, after invading Afghanistan, we turned around and invaded Iraq--a patsy for the "Shrub's" administration. When Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah building in OKC, we did not invade Kansas. The point is that there were alarms connected to this man that we should have seen. He should have--at the very least--been discharged. Maybe he should have been tried for treason or sedition. But because we did not see his warm-up as a "crime," we did nothing. This was an avoidable incident.
See Kathleen Reardon's Profile
Edgar: It's hard not to wonder at times who we really are as a nation and what are our true goals? And is anyone in charge thinking deeply or just doing the same thing they did yesterday?
your one of my favorite bloggers but the fact is that as long as the u.s. has a policy that provides israel with the support and weapons system that keeps the palastinians inslaved, the arab and muslim world will always be at war with us. its not rocket science. j-street recognizes the danger of our one sided policies. it hurts the u.s. and eventually will cause israel great harm. watching the anniversary of the berlin wall coming down was an inspiration, but no one dares speak of the bigger wall separating humans from thier land and employment. our nations politicians certainly have very selective indignities. kathleen, would love for you to speak out but i understand if you choose not to do so. we all have to eat...
Yes we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here.
And yes, like WWII we need to profile and be vigilant on the home front for acts of espionage and sabotage, both of which occurred.
Are we perpetually at war? We had the cold war with communist dictatorship after WWII; we may well have a similar cult war with muslim fascists when and if the Afghan and Iraq conflicts end.
That's the way it is in the schoolyard of nationstates, where power and not civil niceties reigns absolutely.
Fighting them there so we would not have to fight them here never made any sense to me. By fighting them there we created more and more of them, and we could never kill them all, and it only took 19 of them in the US to perpetrate 9/11. There is no way large numbers of terrorists could enter the US to fight in the streets (of course!), so, again, the idea of fighting them over there so we would not have to fight them here makes no sense at all. The strategy makes us more vulnerable to damage from a few radicals.
See Kathleen Reardon's Profile
Wallyone: Yes. The logic of fighting there to avoid it here is weak and yet it's repeated and repeated until it passes as truth.
Wally: well said,
and I never bought for one minute the "we have to fight them there, so we don't have to fight them here". It never made sense. At the time, however, it was considered a travesty to criticize the Shrub administration... it was, after all, following 9/11; and people were loathe to be disagreeable. But that didn't mean that we were not watching w/ dismay, the direction we were being taken.
Now, look at the mess we are in. I'm not sure many of us really knew nor fully appreciated the problems we would end up with; and when the decisions were being made, it was easier to look the other way, instead of raising a ruckus. It is appalling that Cheney would still be so vociferously defending those decisions as being "the right" ones back then. Those decisions made by the Bush/Cheney administration were crim_in_al, and why they are not being prosecuted is beyond me!
This probably should be an essay. I see it forming, but have no time to complete it. This author started me thinking: we were once at war with England; the war ended, and we are strong allies; at war with Germany, Italy and Japan, war ended and we are strong allies.
Viet Nam. The war ended we are now strong allies.
We need to stop killing Muslims and we will become strong allies through the wonderful, respectful attitude Obama projects to the world. When the killing stops, some chaos (there already is), and then we begin to become friends and trading partners and exchange students. Respect, not killing. Here and there.
The argument that we are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here, is intellectually dishonest and frighteningly false. The wars this country was mislead into will be our undoing. Afghanistan is an un-fixable mess and Iraq, which was a manageable mess before the war, is now an even bigger mess and will be for generations to come.
Way... right on; I totally agree!
Well said, kWayne1ea !
As long as we continue to believe that we are in Afghanistan to fight terrorism, we will remain perplexed by the decisions made by our military and government.
This website has an interesting opinion on the subject:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread517352/pg1
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
