The
Calamity of the Converted
by Josh Frank
Dissident
Voice
February 13, 2003
Every morning on
my way into work I pass several newspaper stands, with headlines fanning the
war fervor flames. Whether its Iraq or
North Korea’s latest mess, or Powell’s attempts to sway the UN, our front pages
swarm the rhetorical; engaging our fears of an uncertain world that exists
beyond our superficial borders.
The headlines
that I glance at typically say more about our foreign policy than I ever
realized. If one only read such
headings they would have to wonder how Iraq could be more dangerous than North
Korea, seeing as how their missiles can't reach us. Or despite U.N. member
countries and NATO splitting on war, why Iraq is still the only country in
Bush’s cross hairs?
But headlines
are only meant to provoke the reader into a deeper personal dialogue with
perpetual fear. Much of which is
completely justified. We truly are not
safer than we were prior to those horrible attacks on New York in 2001. But what the headlines won’t encourage us to
question is whether going to war will actually make our homeland more secure.
Just last Friday
President Bush raised the Homeland Security threat level to Orange, the highest
level we've seen since New York was attacked.
Raising the level may be justified, but does the level really say
anything to civilians other than, “be afraid?”
If anything it should raise the questions as to why we are not
attempting harder to rid the US of terrorists.
More specifically, how attacking Iraq will make our homeland safer, when
common sense, as well as the CIA, tells us that such an attack may well spark
more terror on Americans at home and abroad.
The perpetuated
status-quo pressed by our daily news pundits reflects a common misnomer among
the masses in America- that we can do no wrong, that our leaders know best,
that terrorists are simply religious fanatics who are jealous of our freedoms. Those headlines do not question policy, or
lay out probable reasons for anti-American sentiment that much of the world
fosters.
For example no
major headlines spouted the horrific Clinton bombings in 1998 of a
pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, which was destroyed in retaliation for the
alleged Bin Laden car bombings at the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Clinton’s rationale fed right into Bin
Laden’s hands- and only escalated hatred for the US in the region. The plant was supposedly producing chemical
weapons, but it only was the producer of drugs that the Sudan desperately
needed- the toll of victims still unknown.
Did the headlines read, “US Bombs Pharmaceutical Plant, Bin Laden's
Jihad Against US Immanent?” Of course
not. Our leaders know best. Clinton knew best.
Retaliation was
necessary. Right? Unfortunately this
well-known example is only one of many our history offers, where violence and
terror are cyclical malfunctions of US policy, never questioned unless we could
be the victims.
I believe these
questions must be raised and debated.
Will bombing Iraq, which will inevitably kill innocents, make us
safer? Will Jihad against US citizens
end once we oust Saddam? Is Bin Laden
no longer a threat? Or will the
headlines continue to convert the Westerners who will never be spoon-fed the
underbelly of United States empirical policy.
The headlines will only draw on notions that others are fanatical,
religiously at that, angry at our freedoms, not our policy that often involves
bombing innocents by mistake.
The headlines
will keep the fires of war burning- our fears escalating- hotter with every new
alert level.
We are no
safer. No less hated than before.
It just all
seems like a calamity to me.
We better start
stocking our shelves.
Josh Frank is a
writer living in Portland, Oregon. He can be reached at: frank_joshua@hotmail.com