Incredulous Rant

if he can possibly believe the things he says. His repeated mantra was that as a result of his foreign policy, the world is safer and freer.

Picture the giant exclamation point and question mark popping out of my head when he said that. China may be freer now than it was three years ago, and you could argue that Afghanistan (or, at least Kabul) has more freedom now, but we in the United States are considerably less free than we were.

And safer – he’s joking, right? RIGHT? This comes from the same administration that has insisted that we need to surrender the constitution because of dire international threats. So just what danger has been reduced? There are more countries that dislike us. There are more arab countries unwilling to cooperate with us materially to combat international terrorism. We have erected ineffective security measures all over the country so we will get the feeling that something is being done, but none of those measures do more than inconvenience the populace.

Oh, but if I’m wrong, and we are safer now, can we have our freedom back?

5 thoughts on “Incredulous Rant

  1. Loved this writing, Jer. Not sure I agree on all points–probably you and I have been umbilicaled to different news sources. I get the sense arab countries are cooperating more–Pakistan is shooting Taliban in the mountains this month, and Libya sued for peace. (Nonetheless, I suspect if Gallup or Pew polled the Arab man on the street, the democratic sentiment in Arab countries would be hate us.) I am intrigued by your characterization of security measures as ineffective, and am inclined to believe this, but would like to know more detail…I haven’t really noticed much except Red/Orange/Yellow, etc., and the airport checks, which seem marginally effective to me.

  2. Hmm.. digging into the old posts, are we? Not a bad thing. Freedom in Afghanistan is arguable. The trap there is to think of Afghanistan as a country like ours. I think it likely that in Kabul there is more individual freedom than before, but for a moment to believe that the new government has much influence outside the city limits is laughable.

    Going back to John’s comments…

    Although on paper there are five security levels, it is politically impossible to lower the level below yellow. Face it, we don’t know crap about who’s going to do what when, and no politician is going to go before a senate subcommittee explaining why they lowered the thread level to ‘puce’ three hours before the attack. The threat ‘o’ meter is a political tool, not a security tool.

    But you knew that already.

    Ineffective security measures. There is worry that someone with an exotic toxin or biological agent could poison the water supply of a major city. We put fences around the reservoirs. Now you need an exotic toxin or biological agent and bolt cutters to poison a major city.

    Dangerous items still get through airport security. Granted, the definition of ‘dangerous item’ has been expanded to include more lethal weapons than it had before, but the main effect of the security beefups at airports has been to inconvenience passengers. That is what they were designed to do. If you are inconvenienced, you feel the government working to keep you safe.

    Finally, while some Arab governments may be cooperating more, the countries are not. All the governments that support US policy in that region are under tremendous political pressure.We may well lose Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and even Turkey by putting them in such a bad position. What happens when a NATO nation falls under an extremist government?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *