As our class discussions came to a close several interesting
sentiments arose, namely that some of our biggest concerns for the future are
the economy, the negative or invasive potential of technology, and war (or low
intensity conflict). We also recently discussed covering, and foreign policy. In
pondering these seemingly disparate subjects there seems to me to a single
institution/policy/phenomenon that unites them all, The War on Terror.
As far as foreign policy is concerned the effects of the war on terror are clear. The four countries on which we spent the most money in 2011(about 20 billion on the year) are Afghanistan, Israel, Iraq, and Pakistan; countries where we either directly blow up Muslims, or use as proxies to develop and test new technologies for blowing up Muslims. This in turn has led to some serious violations of the rights of Muslim-American citizens here at home and fed into a widespread culture of bigotry at worst, and a demand for covering at least. Judging the effects of this war on the economy is beyond the scope of this blog. I will suggest, however, that 20 bill a year is no drop in the bucket, and surely has some effect. This effect seems to largely be that the future of the social safety net is being mortgaged, while a limited group of defense and infrastructure contractor/cronies pockets are getting swollen. Finally, the governments use of technology to invade into the lives of American citizens has reached sci-fi proportions. prism, drones, warrant-less wiretaps, not to mention all the great autonomous tracking systems and new weapon designs some of the nice folk up on north campus, and other engineering schools around the country, are working on.
So while we have not discussed it directly in class, the war on terror seems to be a primary influence on the world us millennials will inherit. The question that I would like to pose is not whether this war is right or wrong, just or unjust; but why? Being an engineering student, I am at heart a bit of a numbers guy. Starting with the attacks of 9/11, on which the war is largely predicated, until today roughly 3,062 Americans have died in terror attacks at home and abroad. In that same time period 460,531 people have died in auto accidents, about 5,000,000 have died from tobacco use or exposure, in 2010 alone 69,071 people died from diabetes. Let me be clear, I do not mean in any way to marginalize any loss of life, but I think we must ask why we are allowing such huge factors in our lives to be affected by a statistically insignificant threat of terrorism. I believe the president is correct when he says that we can not have 100% security and 100% privacy, but from a numbers standpoint who cares? If saving lives (security, right?) is the primary motivation, why have we not spent nearly a hundred billion dollars addressing public health in the last decade, or funded public safety in chicago where over 6,000 homicides have occurred during the war on terror? Spending almost a hundred billion bucks; dumping on at least the first, and fourth amendments; and perhaps irrevocably changing the nature of the citizen/state relationship, seems a bit of a disproportionate response to something less dangerous than eating at McDonalds, or simply falling over. Just imagine how many lives could be saved and jobs could be created if we spent 20 billion a year building a rail system in this country.
As us millennials move forward into the world we face a rapidly changing reality, technologically and politically. Job prospects, the division between the public and private realms, covering, basically every thing we have talked about this semester, is being largely influenced by what i posit is a non-issue of a premise. The country seems to alternatively bash us for being narcissists, yet look to us to magically use technology to save the economy. I think that we probably will end up pulling the countries chestnuts out of the fire; but with the war on terror, as well as such issues as gender roles, technology, the purpose of education, etc... , we would do well to not take what we have been given at face value. It will soon be our world and we really need to ask, why are we even doing this?
You knew that I was going to have to say something about this.
ReplyDeleteFirst- it's not "blowing up Muslims." We killed a lot of people, granted. I know I've killed more than a few myself. But their religion, tribe, ethnic identity, etc had nothing to do with it. The people we killed either directly attacked us, or attacked the populace when they couldn't get their way.
I couldn't tell you definitively why President Bush and the United States Congress decided to invade Iraq. Maybe they were greedy. Maybe they were stupid. Maybe they were evil. I don't know. I do, however, know that 72% of the American population supported the invasion (even though I didn't). When polls come up with those kinds of numbers, we all know what happens, with very few exceptions.
The truth is that the American people WANTED to go to war, because they were pissed off, arrogant, and so self-assured that me and mine were nothing more than G.I. Joes- invulnerable square-jawed, clean cut types that never get injured, killed, or kill people in job lots. Ultimately, that's a failure of the American people who don't have the first damn clue what we do or what we're about.
Which brings me to the point of "why?"
Afghanistan is the easy one to answer. They killed over 3 000 of our civilians on international TV, ON OUR WATCH. The response to such an event is both mandatory and inexorable. Whatever other nations' stances on war, they're irrelevant. OUR stance is that our civilians are off-limits. Period.
As far as Iraq goes- like I said, I couldn't tell you the "why we did it" part definitively. I CAN tell you that once we went, the choice was simple. Win, or lose. And to that end, the Armed Forces, and the Infantry in particular, have the role as "deterrents" strictly codified into their doctrine. In short, if we fail, hesitate, or reject civilian authority (and you should be scared of that last one), we invite attack by your enemies.
And BELIEVE ME, whatever you would LIKE to think about who we should or shouldn't be "friends" with, you DO have enemies, who would kill you and everyone you know without hesitation. You can also advocate for isolationism all you want, but that's not going to change 200 years of our presence in the Middle Eastern world (Jefferson's invasion of Libya 1804/1805). Closing your yes and clicking your ruby red slippers aren't going to magically send you home or make those enemies disappear.
Food for thought.
Believe me I know that it is incredibly more complex than "blowing up Muslims", I was simply referencing the fact that the war was sold on Bush and co.'s relentless "Islam is Evil" rhetoric, which was clearly an attempt to garnish that overwhelming public support you mention. And I also agree that a response was both "mandatory and inexorable." I am simply suggesting that spending 12 billion a year to fight a war in Afghanistan, whose GDP is 19 billion, is at best monumentally inefficient. The fact is Afghanistan did not attack us, a group of Saudi nationals (good friends) did. Dismantling the Taliban who shielded them should have been immediate and final. I just don't see how, having already taken their best shot, we are still justifying the relentless erosion of our liberties fighting this paper tiger.
ReplyDeleteI am willing to ignore our historic support of despotic leaders and sacrilegious presence in another cultures holy land, and take at face value that people want to harm us. But here we are, literally at the bargaining table in Afghanistan with the Taliban. Money well spent (!). I do not suffer under the delusion that we live in secure times, I am simply suggesting that the "threat" that we are currently fighting at great cost is minimal. How about the fact that china has recently stolen the schematics and technical information for every major defense system we have, or that Iran has gained access to and information on our critical power and water supply infrastructures. Maybe we could have spent a few dollars bolstering our IT defenses.
I don't believe in magic and I look terrible in red, it brings out the worst in my complexion. But I am unwilling to accept the fact that the life I want to live (with the fourth amendment and not with drones) is now threatened more by my own government than it is by enemies whose resources require them to fly budget air to attack me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete