Living in Interesting Times

As the old Chinese curse has finally become a part of our every day lives, we now live in interesting times. Living in a country that has not been in an official war in many decades, it is somewhat ironic that we are now living through a number of wars in name only, like the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, and most recently, the War on Terrorism. We have soldiers stationed overseas in numerous areas, including Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, depending upon where you place Afghanistan on your version of an official map. Some of those troops are stationed in peaceful environments, while others are part of sweep-up operations, and others can arguably be considered to be part of actual wartime conditions. But ironically, to use that Morissette-inspired word again, we’re not in an actual war right now. We’re just in places with guns and a readiness to use them, and unfortunately sometimes in a necessity to use them as well.

Which brings me to the subject of this little scribe, and that’s the recent act of violence that occurred on US military property, the attack that took place at Fort Hood, Texas. I don’t think any American argues that the incident was a definite act of criminality by a very disturbed individual who had been entrusted as an American soldier. And I don’t think very many Americans would disagree that this individual is probably someone who was acting in a definite mode that could be construed as illegal, and possibly even of an escalatory nature that would lead to a state of war, if we could actually attribute his actions to a country that was working against the United States. Unfortunately, the culprit was an American, working for the United States, who went nuts and killed a great deal of Americans all in the name of some psychotic delusion that he was fulfilling a personal vendetta against demons that most Americans will probably never understand, nor will most ever even try.

What is truly disturbing is that there are those who feel it necessary to attribute this man’s actions to the state of terrorism, hoping to somehow link him to some ideology that they dislike and hope to cast further distaste upon by making such a connection. There is little doubt in my mind that he was probably aligning himself with some religious idealism and movement that he believed was righteous and virtuous in his mind, and I would also not be surprised if he somehow hoped that might one day be linked with their movements and ideals as well. However, that does not necessarily mean there is an actual connection to those organizations, other than circumstantial and fanciful in nature. Yet, there are those who are attempting to make it seem as if this lone gunner is tied to terrorist actions because a dictionary definition can somehow equate his actions with bad linkage, much like Saddam Hussein was linked with 9/11 just because it served a political purpose to make such an argument.

It is that same type of linkage that appears to be making its way into political rhetoric today. And this is unfortunate because in order to truly deal with this pseudo war on terrorism means an actual ability to actually pigeon hole it enough so that such connections can be made; otherwise, linkage is useless other than as a rhetorical rallying tool. As a mechanism to actually get things done, real linkage is necessary because if there is a real connection, which there is not, then by attacking the foundation of the circumstances that led to the attack, we might actually fundamentally serve to defeat the very nature of terrorism. And unfortunately, that will never happen if we were to do so. Think of it this way: If there is no connection ever made, and it’s doubtful that there ever will be, then if we manage to discover what drove this person into psychotic levels of disturbed behavior, and we manage to eliminate the causes, then all we have managed to do is fix the problem from happening with someone in the military who is acting on disturbed behavioral traits. While this would be a good thing to attack and eliminate, we must realize that eliminating such behavior will do nothing to eliminate actual terrorism. However, if we believe the opposite, then if we ever do succeed in eliminating such causes, we will fool ourselves into believing we have done something to eliminate terrorism, when in reality all we have done is set up a false sense of security so that one day we will get attacked again, and like usual it will hit us in a way to where we find ourselves asking similar questions over and over, like “how could this happen?” and “why didn’t anyone see this coming?”

This is why we must be vigilant against such fake moves to equate bad behavior with terrorism in hopes of furthering political movements, which is the only cause that benefits from making such connections. Recently, I’ve been monitoring a number of anti-Obama individuals who find it necessary to make any attack against Obama possible, and this has served as an easy mechanism to do so. What works better than rallying the troops behind a claim of a president who cannot handle terrorism happening during his administration? Unfortunately, while this might benefit political actors with really low level goals, it also hurts the country with long-term effects. The solution is to ignore stuff like this, but unfortunately, when it works as such a strong rhetorical tool, the chances of that happening are slim to none.

It is the same rhetoric that was used during the beginning of the war or terrorism; any attempt to criticize it is immediately used as further ammunition to push the cause that much deeper into the national psyche. It plays on the simplistic argument of fear mongering without any actual costs involved. When it is finally defeated by a stronger counter-narrative, it is usually too late, and the political circumstances have changed or reversed so that the original benefactors of the original discourse now benefit from reversing the message.

That’s where we are now. The discourse has reversed (a new party is in power) so the people who defended the regime are now taking the rhetoric of the original complainers (who used the original complaints to cast out the previous regime), which can only serve to uproot the new regime that has taken charge. Unfortunately, the one thing that gets lost is the truth and basic ethics. If ever there was a time for moderates and moderation, it is now; if ever there was a forum where moderates are ignored and cast out as irrelevant, it is also now.
Kind of sucks, if you think about it.

Stumble It!