The Futility of the ‘War on Terror’ and Bush’s Apocalyptic Agenda

Posted on February 1, 2006 by Dave Pollard

Here’s a question for you:

If just half of the money that the Bush regime has spent on overseas wars and ‘homeland’ security since 9/11 had instead been spent on medical research, anti-drunk-driver technology, and improving health, education and infrastructure in the poorest areas of America, how many lives would have been saved, and, compared to that, how many more ‘terrorism’-related deaths would have occurred on American soil?

If it helps, here’s some data:

There have been no ‘terrorism’-related deaths on American soil since 9/11 and of course, for ‘security reasons’, and conveniently for Bush, we have no idea whether any of his additional ‘security’ spending has prevented even one death.
Over 2,400 Americans have been killed in Bush’s overseas wars and over 17,000 Americans injured.
The average life span of black Americans is six years less than that of white Americans, meaning that inferior health care and living standards result in about 40,000 premature deaths of black Americans per year.
Deaths attributed to drunk driving in America are running at about 17,000 per year. Deaths attributed to tobacco use in America are running at about 440,000 per year.
The direct cost of the Iraq war alone has been $250B.
The cost of ‘homeland’ security is over $40B per year, more than twice what it was before Bush.
The series of Bush tax cuts for the rich will reduce government revenues (and hence services for the poor) by an average of about $200B per year over the next decade.

And if the US government spent money on medical research that the private Big Pharma companies (which prefer to spend money developing cures for illnesses of the wealthy, like impotence) find unprofitable, like finding a cure for AIDS, or influenza, the number of lives that could be saved, and ruined lives made livable, is almost unimaginable.

The real brilliance of the horrific attacks of 9/11 was not their high death toll or visual spectacle, but their ability to provoke a knee-jerk reaction in American conservatives that a recurrence of those attacks must be prevented at any cost. That cost has so far included the bankrupting of the US treasury, a widening of the disparity in quality of life between the rich and the poor to a gulf, and the opportunity cost (what otherwise could have been achieved by peacetime spending) of over a quarter trillion dollars per year.

No amount of money, and no amount of security, can prevent a recurrence of 9/11 whenever it suits the next rich psychopath to launch it. Our society is simply too open and too global to defend against such attacks — there are just too many ways that anyone could launch them, as the Oklahoma City bombers demonstrated long before 9/11. But this reality of openness, of defenselessness, of powerlessness, is simply unfathomable and intolerable to the conservative mindset of father-figure-as-protector. The alternative to Bush’s futile extravagant spending and foreign adventures would be to do almost nothing, to admit that the liberals were right all along — and that the only way to prevent violence is to remove the causes of human misery that lead the unhinged to extreme nothing-left-to-lose actions. Bin Laden surely knew that Bush could not stomach that alternative, and that his actions would cause Bush to bankrupt the US treasury in an irrational attempt to defend against any conceivable future ‘terrorist’ act, thus rendering the US unable to muster forces to block Bin Laden’s plan to create a single Islamic fundamentalist state from West Africa to Indonesia.

The very fact that Bush has called it ‘The War on Terror’ betrays his awareness that the ‘enemies’ in this war cannot be identified, their location cannot be identified, their means of attack cannot be guessed at, and when and where they will attack cannot be determined. It is a ‘war’ that can never be won.

And the futility of this endless War has another cost besides its astronomical financial and human costs: It is turning the US into a police state: (“a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force, and considers itself above the law”). And what characterizes a police state more than the paranoia and fear that it indefinitely sustains is the loss of rights and freedoms it brings about. This was a bonus even Bin Laden probably never expected — that the very rights and freedoms that distinguished America from its ‘enemies’ would be curtailed and eliminated as incompatible with national security. This is a slippery slope that America has been sliding down since the Patriot Act and it is still continuing — we now know that Bush and Homeland Security consider the Internet a tool of ‘the enemy’ and intend to obtain “maximum control of the entire electromagnetic spectrum” and gain the ability at any time to “disrupt or destroy the full spectrum of globally emerging communications systems, sensors, and weapons systems dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum”.

If it sounds impossible that the US government could own and control (and destroy) the Internet, it isn’t. As Doc Searls has explained, the US telecom oligopoly is now attempting, using a corporate-friendly Congress, to get control of the Internet and put tolls on it. It’s a small step from there for the government to nationalize it ‘in the interests of security’ and do what they want with it. Welcome Big Brother. They recently demanded that Google provide them with logs of every search done by everyone on the planet in a two-month ‘test period’ using the Google search engine. The other major search engines complied with similar demands.

This lunacy is evidence of deep paranoia, a form of mental illness that sees menace behind every door and in every (illegally tapped) personal telephone conversation or e-mail. I would argue that this lunacy is the inevitable consequence of the confrontation between socially conservative thinking and the realities of our ‘global village’ world. Social conservatives believe that we are inherently weak, susceptible to the ‘temptations of evil’, and that it is the responsibility of paternalistic leaders to impose moral authority on us, and to teach us the values of ‘good’ behaviour and to make us fear the consequences of ‘evil’ behaviour. Such intimidation may work well enough in closed societies, but in the modern world there are many, highly conflicting views of what, and who, are ‘good’ and ‘evil’. When all social conservatives (including Bush and Bin Laden) are trying simultaneously to impose their values on their families, their citizens, their ‘consumers’, their congregations, while there is a constant intermingling of families, citizens, ‘consumers’ and congregations, and a simultaneous globalization of societies and cultures, the only possible consequence is perpetual war and ubiquitous paranoia. Social conservativism is simply incompatible with the modern world, an evolutionary throwback (it is no coincidence that social conservatives deny the theory of evolution) to a time when cultures were isolated and there were new frontiers for non-conformists to be exiled to, and its recent resurgence, both in America and in the Mideast, is a serious threat to the peace and perhaps even the survival of our civilization.

The irony is that economic conservatism, which is different from social conservatism, and which supports a laissez-faire, unregulated approach to economic management (“let the ‘market’ decide”), is the force most responsible for the globalization that has led to homogenization of our cultures and hence created the violent paranoia of social conservatives.

In the born-again Bush we have both social and economic conservatism. A socially conservative leader should be an isolationist, not an imperialist, and should be averse to free trade and other vehicles of globalization, since these inevitably weaken cultures and the ability of paternalistic leaders to command obedience and conformity to their definition of ‘good’ behaviour. In fact before 9/11 there was some evidence that Bush was an isolationist and not enamoured of ‘free’ trade.

But the neocons pulling his strings are extreme economic conservatives, and they have persuaded him (to advance their own personal economic interests) that globalization can be consistent with social conservatism provided that his, evangelical Christian values model prevails all over the globe. While the intermixing of cultures, and the spread of knowledge of other ways of living, are a great threat to the social conservative, the total homogenization of world culture based on evangelical Christian values could, after the inevitable horrific wars to the death of other cultures, produce a peaceful, undifferentiated, servile world population. Heaven on Earth for the winner, and the losers, as with all the cultural genocides in human history, are exterminated to the point their voice is no longer heard.

This was the objective of the original Crusades, and of the missionaries sent to ‘convert’ the ‘heathen’, violently or mortally if necessary, throughout our history. No cultural diversity means no more wars. The citizen is reduced socially to an obedient sheep, and reduced economically to a ‘consumer’ who, as Jerry Michalski famously put it “is nothing more than a gullet whose only purpose in life is to gulp products and crap cash”. It was not an accident that Bush used the word ‘crusade’ in describing his invasion of Iraq, and predicted his war would be a very long one.

Such a vision fills me with sadness, and the thought of the bloodshed its realization would require horrifies me. But I understand it. It is the apocalyptic conservative’s nirvana, a realization of ‘right makes might’. I don’t think I could live in such a dreary, controlled world. But maybe, if I was born into one, and if it were the only life I knew, I might think differently.

In the meantime, enjoy America while it is solvent, and your Internet before it is taken away. And getready for the next volley, the War in Iran — a neocon explains why, in social conservative thinking, it’s imminent and inevitable.

Thanks to Dale Asberry for the Internet and War in Iran links.

This entry was posted in How the World Really Works. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to The Futility of the ‘War on Terror’ and Bush’s Apocalyptic Agenda

kerry says:

February 1, 2006 at 17:16

Thank you once again for your voice of sanity, Dave. Whilst it may seem clear to most of us, as you say, those in denial cannot understand why we don’t support their tactics. I had a bizarre dream the other night in which George Bush said to me …”why don’t you like me”. It was the voice of a wounded little boy just wanting to be liked. Perhaps there are some that can’t be reached intellectually. But perhaps we can reach people emotionally by not giving power to their strategies with arguments, but simply facilitating them to see their own truth in a non-judgemental way? I don’t know…it was just a dream :)
Rayne says:

February 2, 2006 at 00:10

Hey Dave — Sorry, off-topic, but did you happen to see this announcement?http://blogs.salon.com/0000014/2006/02/01.htmlPass it on to anyone else in Salon Blogs.
Mike says:

February 2, 2006 at 14:37

Dave, that’s a great analysis. Millions of americans running contradictory ‘strange loops’ in their heads. I’m getting out of here.
Raging Bee says:

February 2, 2006 at 15:57

The very fact that Bush has called it ‘The War on Terror’ betrays his awareness that the ‘enemies’ in this war cannot be identified, their location cannot be identified, their means of attack cannot be guessed at, and when and where they will attack cannot be determined. It is a ‘war’ that can never be won.Every terrorist, terrorist-sympathizer, terrorist wannabee, and terrorist-supporter in history has said this, and in the long run, they’ve all been proven wrong. IRA, PLO, KKK, Shining Path…all of these groups had their heyday, when everyone thought they were invincible and unstoppable; and all of them were eventually crushed — or at least rendered irrelevant and harmless — by the civilized majority who got tired of undisciplined violence.If you can’t think of a way to defeat irresponsible extremist violence, that’s okay; just step aside, calm down, let the pros handle it, and be prepared to act when called upon. It can be done. And, more importantly, it must.
Mike says:

February 2, 2006 at 16:20

Raging Bee, you’ve misread Dave’s point. The War on Terror is *designed* to be unwinable.
Raging Bee says:

February 2, 2006 at 16:36

Incompetent? Yes. “Designed to be unwinnable?” That’s what every tinfoil-hat conspiracy buff says about every war they don’t agree with.
Raging Bee says:

February 2, 2006 at 19:24

One thing that needs to be understood about terrorism, is that it’s practiced by people who can’t get their agenda enacted any other way, because: they don’t have enough popular support; and they don’t have enough self-discipline for effective non-violent political action. This is why terrorsts lose: they resorted to terrorism because they were already losing in the first place! And when the peace-loving majority get over the initial wave of fear, they win because the terrorists have nothing else to stand on.
medaille says:

February 2, 2006 at 22:55

Raging Bee, I know that you have trouble understanding us “tinfoil-hat conspiracy buffs.” I realize you have no idea, that half of this country thinks you have your head buried in the sand, because your mind would crumble if it actually had to comprehend what we have comprehended and thought about. I can tell because in the past when we have argued, you continually take my thoughts out of context and ignore the important stuff and cling to the superficial points that you can disagree with. You have an overly simplistic view of the world. I’ll agree with you on this statement, One thing that needs to be understood about terrorism, is that it’s practiced by people who can’t get their agenda enacted any other way, but your reasoning behind it is incredibly naive. You make some assumptions that are just plain wrong. Your first false assumption is that governments are based on popular support. Also, inherent in that first assumption is that you assume that people are rational, which is also false. I would recommend that you read some literature from the “mirrors for princes” genre, which is written as a guide for how rulers can control their population. Once created a government has one primary goal, to maintain its power over the population. This is true in almost any institution. No one wants to willing give power over to another and once obtained they don’t want to give it up. There are so many material benefits of being in the social elite. Granted, its not going to help them develop spiritually, but that’s not really even in their picture, so they don’t realize they’re missing it.People are easily tricked and unwilling to accept the notion that they could be tricked. Hooray for the ego. You also fail to notice that true change is almost impossible to achieve by working within the governmental system. This is because its a rigged game. Its a good ol boys club that cannot tolerate substantial change. Almost all governments will not let themselves be dismantled into a better form, because those in control do not want to be replaced or lose control.You also make the mistake in assuming that the terrorists are in the minority for their beliefs. In reality the peace loving majority and the terrorists often have the same view point with the only difference being in how to achieve those goals. Most people reject the idea of taking anothers life, and won’t fight unless the fight is intitiated on them. You cannot popular support your way to a peaceful overturning of a government that does not accurately reflect the needs of the citizens. This is true in middle eastern countries, obviously, but it is also true here in democracies. This is evident in the incredible amount of apathy regarding people turning out to vote. Nobody votes because it wouldn’t make a difference. Why doesn’t voting make a difference? Voting is based on the idea that people are rational, which is clearly false. The majority of a persons decisions are made unconsciously, and thus aren’t rational in the sense that rational though is based on conscious decision making processes. A lot of times people think they are making a conscious decision, but in reality the decision was made unconsciously and the conscious is just justifying the decision.And when the peace-loving majority get over the initial wave of fear, they win because the terrorists have nothing else to stand on. I’m going to assume that by peace-loving majority, you are including yourself in this group? Explain to me, how you can support the most warmongering and most destructive governments the world has seen and still consider yourself peaceful? You don’t see many other countries intiating wars on every major continent in the course of a decade or two. You don’t see many other governments forcing their economic systems on other countries through the corruption of their leaders.—————————-The war on terror is by definition a war on a concept.Its exactly the same as a war on happiness or a war on differing opinions. It is flawed by design, because you cannot eliminate terror from the top down. It is impossible. Terror springs from the bottom up and it is impossible for the government to both control the bottom (via culture control systems) and still maintain their greedy ways, because resource inequity and freedom inequity will force terror to occur. It is inevitable, the same as you can’t force people to be miserable. Happiness is a state of mind and cannot be completely obliterated. So are the metal processes that allow terror. The more the social elite try to control people, the more people unconsciously reject this control.
Raging Bee says:

February 6, 2006 at 16:08

Your first false assumption is that governments are based on popular support.Actually, they are. Even the most anti-democratic government maintains power with a significant amount of popular support — not necessarily a majority, and not through democratic processes, but the popular support is there nonetheless.Also, inherent in that first assumption is that you assume that people are rational, which is also false.First, that is most certainly NOT “inherent in that first assumption;” and second, people do, for better or worse, tend to act with some underlying rationality in the pursuit and defense of their self- and group-interests as they see them, and as they are able to act at the time. (I’ll leave aside the implied bigotry of your unspoken assumption that you’re “rational” and the rest of humanity aren’t, and move on…)The war on terror is by definition a war on a concept.Rubbish. It is a struggle against interest-groups who, in their methods and tactics, explicitly reject nearly all of the values of democracy, mutual respect, basic rights, peaceful resolution of disputes, and even civilized society itself. Terrorism is a form of violent organized crime, plain and simple, and it must be seen and treated as such, regardless of its alleged motive or cause. If you think the consequences of IRA or Palestinian terrorism are only a “concept,” then you have no clue what you’re talking about.Terror springs from the bottom up and it is impossible for the government to both control the bottom (via culture control systems) and still maintain their greedy ways, because resource inequity and freedom inequity will force terror to occur.If that’s the case, then why aren’t terrorists coming from all over the non-free world, instead of mostly from the Middle East? Is there no “resource inequity and freedom inequity” in China, North Korea, or Latin America?Explain to me,how you can support the most warmongering and most destructive governments the world has seen and still consider yourself peaceful?I never supported Hitler, Stalin, Khomeini, Saddam, Hafez Assad, the Darfur ethnic-cleansers, or Pol Pot. What the hell are you on about?
Dave Pollard says:

February 13, 2006 at 19:06

Kerry, Mike, Medaille — thank you. It’s interesting that, since I wrote this, there have been several articles in the MSM alluding to the neocons’ apocolyptic Crusade for cultural, political and philosophical homogeneity. I wonder at what point will the neocons realize the Crusade is not winnable, and revert to their former style of xenophobic isolationists?
mike says:

February 14, 2006 at 02:40

Bush Tags bloggers as Terrorists:Homeland Security completed its