Since 9-11, it seems that the American Left and the American Right have agreed on something of profound importance: we're scared.
The politics of the last decade have been the politics of fear.
Because of fear that one of us is a terrorist, we've allowed our intelligence services to listen into our private conversations; because of fear of terrorists from abroad, we have killed innocent people in foreign nations (supposedly to protect ourselves here); because of fear that our planes will get blown up, we let government agents put their hands on our children's crotches and look at our naked bodies, and because of fear that the economy will implode, we've given trillions of dollars to organizations that have brought us to that point.
None of it feels very brave or free. None of it feels very American.
Nations confident of their strength don't seek fights. The most powerful nations win without firing a shot. Nations confident of their security and the ability of their agents to maintain it don't compromise the dignity or legal rights of its citizens. Nations confident that the innovativeness and entrepreneurialism of its people can provide prosperity don't reward bad custodians of financial resources to "save the system."
America has surely been a great nation. But with true greatness -- true power -- comes self-confidence. What has happened to the America that the world used to love, even if in some quarters, grudgingly? It was always American self-confidence, justified largely by the examples we set regarding the treatment of our people and, during our grander historical moments, other people, on which our leadership depended. We were respected and powerful to the extent that other nations wanted to be like us -- to have our prosperity, our freedom and our openness.
Ten years after 9/11, who have we become and who do we appear to be?
Minimizing risk at reasonable cost is the action of a sensible man or nation. Trying to eliminate all risk at any cost -- not only financial, but also of principle -- is the action of a man or nation that has become obsessive, compulsive, scared, or all three.
A few years ago, a friend of mine returned from a tour in Iraq as a proud American soldier to be required at Seattle airport to remove his shoes and equipment and be screened in the full fashion. The treatment shocked him as it was his first encounter with it and gave the lie to what he believed was his purpose a day earlier on the streets of Baghdad. Simply, how could he have been fighting over there to protect American liberties and values if they were being compromised away with so little fight at home?
The rest of us might ask how we so easily take away the fourth amendment right of that soldier, who a day earlier had put his life on the line for our fourth amendment (and other) right(s). We could ask a similar question about the first amendment right of a Vietnam vet. who is now a member of the tea party and is on a government agency list as a potential troublemaker for that reason, or, to push the point further, the inalienable right of the small businessman to pursue happiness and be treated equally with all others if his taxes are being used to bail out the bank that holds his mortgage but made poorer business decisions than he did.
The use of force -- whether legal or military -- always reveals a failure of some other, preferable means. If our sons and daughters in uniform are truly fighting for American freedoms, then those freedoms must all still exist at home uncompromised: inasmuch as we give them up at home, those men and women cannot be fighting to protect them, just as a matter of simple logic. Those of us who are fortunate enough to stay at home while our soldiers fight abroad, demean their service if we are too lazy not to speak out in opposition when our leaders compromise our Constitutional rights (always for our own good). And if, worse, we support those compromises out of our own fear, then we meet our soldiers' bravery with our own cowardice.
In the last century, America led the free world by being the indispensable nation that others sought to emulate. But obsessive, scared nations, like obsessive scared people, are not models for anyone. America had led the free world by persuasion, based on a moral authority that came with the rights and prosperity that its legal and economic systems provided for its people. As our nation has ceased to trust in those rights and the system that has provided its prosperity, we have given up moral authority and persuasive power. That is why so many of our attempts to make ourselves safer will fail in their stated purpose.
Ten years on from 9/11, we can afford to take a deep breath. If anyone attacks us, we'll still be able to respond with the greatest military force in the history of the world. If anyone should infiltrate us, we have some of the most honorable men and women and the best technological means to find them, and a justice system, older than the country itself, to deal with them. If we have a recession, we can take our losses and come back with the ingenuity and effort of an entrepreneurial and serious population. If another nation should grow its economy in leaps and bounds, we can say "good luck" to them, because we know we can do that too.
We call our country the land of the free and the home of the brave. But who, honestly, is feeling brave and free today?
I want America to get its swagger back -- for the good of the world, let alone ourselves.
Becoming America again is a choice. We can swagger without shouting. We can carry the big stick and not be the first to use it. And we can instinctively say "Hell, no" each time anyone would take it upon themselves to take even one of our liberties away to make us "safer" or for any other purpose.
I wonder how many Americans would voluntarily fly in a commercial jet in which passengers did not go through today's imaging scanners or the full pat-down at the airport, but went only through the security procedures that were in place on 10 Sept 2001? All passengers would know, along with any potential terrorist, that our flight is marginally less secure.
The risk of attack would, I suppose, be marginally higher than it would be on those planes whose passengers had gone through today's procedures. But since it is nine times less than the risk of dying by suffocation in my own bed, I would take the odds to make the statement that as an American, following Franklin, I will not give up my liberty for my safety; that I want America back; that I would rather have the Bill of Rights than the extra 0.0001% reduction in the probability of being blown out of the sky. I bet there would be millions like me.
There is no such thing as certainty. If you don't want uncertainty, then you don't want life. Americans have always embraced uncertainty and taken life by the scruff of the neck. The real question is, "if I am to take a risk, for what is the risk worth taking?"
If the government is going to protect my life, it must first leave my life full of the liberties that make it worth protecting. And in the USA, when those two things are in tension (and they rarely are, despite what we are told), it should be up to the individual to decide on the balance.
If we so choose, we have the power to make the last ten years of fear, wars, invasions of privacy, bailouts etc. the exception to the rule of American history, rather than the new normal. It would be the choice to be changed by not what comes at us but what comes from us.
9/11 was a historically unprecedented shock and we acted accordingly. We were shaken. No shame in that. But a decade or so later, we can take stock at what we have collectively done to our great nation and determine whether it has served us and will serve our children. We may disagree on what we find but I'd wager that many will say that we have compromised away more of our own identity than any terrorist attack ever did take or ever could take.
The terrorists took over 3000 lives. The loss was severe; we should learn its lessons of sensible precaution and humility. Each one of those lost souls was -- is -- an infinity, and we should never forget them. It goes without saying that the relevant agencies should be fully resourced to protect us, and their work supported - right up to the point that America is in danger of no longer being American.
Yet, fewer lives were taken on 9/11 than are lost in one month on American roads. Everything else that we may have lost since then, we have consented to lose.
In fear and shock, we may have given the terrorists more of what they really wanted, by making ourselves poorer in both treasure and liberty.
Bin Laden said,
"All we have to do is send two mujaheddin ... to raise a small piece of cloth on which is written 'al-Qaeda' in order to make the generals race there, to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses."
While some of the expenditures of treasure may have been wise, were all of those of liberty, too?
To remain the land of the free and the home of the brave, let us actively choose to be America again. Indeed, to honor the memories of our countrymen lost on 9/11, we must choose to become more truly American than we have ever been.
How will we know when we've done that? At the very least, we will have more civil liberties than we did on 10 Sept 2001 -- not fewer; and we will be less frightened -- not more.
God bless America, and all who lost kin or kith on Sept. 11, 2001.
Follow Robin Koerner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rkoerner
Eliot Daley: Can 9/11 Prompt a More Peaceful World?
Your articles are a breath of fresh air in an otherwise dishonest propaganda spewing media that predominates news reporting and analysis today. Of all the "9/11 10th anniversary reflection" pieces I've read over the past week, this is by far the most thought-provoking, intellectually honest, and introspective commentary on the subject.
Keep up the great work and the good fight. This piece should have been front and center on HuffPost's home page and should be read by all, esp. those who continue to spout the justification for sacrificed liberty and privacy at the altar of perpetual war brought on by an irrational and schizophrenic national hubris.
You have earned a loyal reader.
Imagine how good we'd feel if we again fought for justice not injustice.
We could regain much of the world's admiration if we called our ambassador home from Israel and voted "yes" for a Palestinian state.
Maybe UN can have a role..but,If I headed the UN..I'd make the land that is fought over ? WORLD Land..I'd put folks from all nations in there,and protect it from BOTH sides..a sort of "Peace zone" that way,Isreal has no excuse to encroach ,fearing Palestinian violence if too close,and Palestinians don't have to worry about ISREAL attacking THEM..seems simple to me
deal with both like the stubborn children they behave like..send them to opposite corners :)
It's probably far more than just land they fight over ,right ? can't be just one little strip of land they dare both call "Holy" while they soak it in the blood of God's children on both sides ?
( don't kill me for saying so) but,that's how "I" an average American ,think it should be handled..maybe then there can be Peace on earth..til folks find some other reason to kill each other
Krugman,peter shiff and someone in between the two economic philo's maybe Dylan Ratigan ? to question all the candiates
ENVIRONMENT..Al Gore ( if he's willing) and who ever else is involved,but also,someone representing the opposing view. Al Gore can also represent those who have been kicked around by media and political parties,fairly or unfairly ( probably the latter,now that I see how media manipulates)..he has that current TV thing now,I suppose in response to corporate owned TV news
WAR AND FORIEGN POLICY... hmm who could we ask to ask those questions ?
CIVIL LIBERTIES..2 civil liberties lawyers from ACLU..as well as al sharpton and someone from NAACP ( he fears states rights),AND JUDGE NEPOLITANO ( whom most TP folks trust)
and YOU ) Mr.Koener,Jason Linkins maybe Mrs Huffington, ( to represent online ) and Rachel Maddow ( representing media) Tucker Carlson and Kieth Olberman ( I know..he's Cranky,but sharp)and whoever all agree we can trust on conservative side,need some one to speak for Libertarians..conservative and liberal libertarians
BTW if you invite all the candidates and they decline,guess it's cause they are afraid to be probed and vetted by people with Google at their finger tips ? I Really hope you do this, I think it is the answer..and folks voting will be more educated and well informed before voting ( NO smeres to distract)..and maybe..we can mail the discussion will probably end up being a thick pamphlet to all registered voters and leave it for free in stores or post offices..where ever..Corp Media and Corp owned candidates and fakes..don't stand a chance against "we the little people" :) C'mon ! lets do this
obviously OP doesn't believe america is weak. what he's saying is that we are allowing ourselves to act like a bunch of wobbly-kneed old women in the name of an illusory "security" which does not, never has, and never will exist. we are ACTING weak.
just because you don't get it, willfully or otherwise, doesn't give you license to say "GTFO." sorry. he's entitled to say and believe what he likes and remain a happy citizen - or a disgruntled citizen - or whatever. that is, after all, what america is about.
if you don't get THAT, maybe YOU should GTFO.
As for the mainstream media - there's a reason their voices are so strident on radio and television. They are losing the information battle. The Internet provides exposure to many views from many sides. One can Google foreign newspapers and run them through the translator. Obviously the translations aren't perfect, but sufficient enough to understand the main ideas. The Internet also provides insights into the history behind the current Middle East struggles and our involvement. And finally, the Internet supplies foreign and domestic news the US media doesn't want you to know. It's no wonder the US government keeps trying to put more and more restrictions on the Internet.
I don't like oath-breakers and mind gamers. I sure as h*ll don't want them in charge of my country.
I want leaders who, even if I don't agree with everything they may say, will stick to their principles and the Constitution even in defiance of their own party.
Ron Paul 2012.
WOW THAT is really really cool..I didn't know there was a program that could do that..THAT is fantastic,thank you for telling us about it.
so,if you read this Mr.Koener please let me know what you think..also ,anyone else who reads it,if you like the idea or have better ideas for it let me know
I, like most ,today,really don't KNOW everything a president has the constitutional power to affect..so that should be made clear.
for example ..folks kept screaming at Obama EVEN the media and folks in his party
and the fed chairman ( I think) to FORCE his will by exec order or what was it ? the 14th ammendment ?
THAT is NOT his place as president,and he knew that,and Earned "MY" respect for not doing it. people tend to think presidents are dictators,some want them to be.
so..we need to know what questions pertain to presidential powers,cause that's really all that matters
I wanted to email this idea to you,but,I have a bug in my mail,not sure if it is fixed yet..
I'm known as somewhat of an airhead by those who know me offline
but,I have alot of ideas,and a few moments of clarity ( rare,though they are)
My Idea is to ask all the candidates including Obama,to an online debate..but,not like what they already have planned,BUT one where they chat back and forth to each other,like we do here.
it could be run by you and maybe Jason Linkins ( he's very sharp ,but fair,catches things I see some have missed )
I'd like it to be a 2 or 3 day deal a couple of hours each week maybe ? I dunno..but,it should be interactive..where we,those reading it,can post questions in real time and wait for reply,from the debaters. In this forum it can be run like a Bible study ( don't laugh) lol..you could instruct the candidates and us to google this or that legislation and speeches on it ( Like Ron Paul's)
in that way,we get a Fuller understanding,and so..can make a far better determination of who's ideas are better,would work ,and who is just full of poop and just saying what they think we want to hear.
prt1
Brilliant. Bravo.
The first objective was obviously successful. We memorialized the thousands killed on September 11, 2011 and should have also similarly remembered and honored the many thousand more men and women who, serving in our armed forces, have died over the past ten years. But, gradually, those of us who remember the bombings will age and die off and new generations will not have the same sense of horror.
However, Bin Laden has spectacularly succeeded in his second objective. The U.S. has squandered trillions of dollars pursuing him and other terrorists. We have launched unprovoked war against the government and citizens of Iraq--a country not involved in the attack--at the whim of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Wolfowitz/Krisol. And the United States economy is in shambles, having collapsed from the modest recession we were dealing with in 2001 into a full-fledged and protracted depression.
Our politicians should realized that WE are not the enemy and WE are not the cause of the current economic situation or the lack of confidence. So, they should stop treating US like the enemy. Our enemies abroad have had their way with us for a decade, despite our devolution into torture, suppression of dissent, elimination of privacy, common civility, and turning our back on the less fortunate in our country.
It is time for them to UNITE to collectively reset our legislative agenda to undo what Bin Laden and his enablers have unleashed on us.
America is a young nation -- very much like a teenager. It tends to be volatile, irrational, and over-react to threats. I notice that older nations, all of which have to deal with terrorism, tend to react with more circumspection, and not let it rule their existence.
The left hate the right who hate the left who hate the rich who hate the poor who hate the rich who hate the socialists who hate the traditionalists who hate the modernists who hate the Muslims who hate the Jews who hate the Arabs who hate the West who hate the terrorists who hate the Americans who hate the Chinese.
And that's just any day on Huffpost.