I've Heard This Before...

Hillary Clinton had her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations committee yesterday. I was perusing the transcript and noted this:

Terrorism remains a serious threat and we must have a comprehensive strategy, leveraging intelligence, diplomacy, and military assets to defeat al- Qaeda and like-minded terrorists by rooting out their networks and drying up support for their violent and nihilistic extremism. The gravest threat that America faces is the danger that weapons of mass destruction will fall into the hands of terrorists. To ensure our future security, we must curb the biological, chemical, or cyber - while we take the lead in working with others to reduce current nuclear stockpiles and prevent the development and use of dangerous new weaponry.

Therefore, while defending against the threat of terrorism, we will also seize the parallel opportunity to get America back in the business of engaging other nations to reduce stockpiles of nuclear weapons. We will work with Russia to secure their agreement to extend essential monitoring and verification provisions of the START Treaty before it expires in December 2009, and we will work toward agreements for further reductions in nuclear weapons. We will also work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian missiles off hair-trigger alert, act with urgency to prevent proliferation in North Korea and Iran, secure loose nuclear weapons and materials, and shut down the market for selling them - as Senator Lugar has done for so many years. The Non Proliferation Treaty is the cornerstone of the nonproliferation regime, and the United States must exercise the leadership needed to shore up the regime. So, we will work with this committee and the Senate toward ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and reviving negotiations on a verifiable Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty.

All the non-proliferation talk is fine, but oh Lord, why the terrorist WMD rhetoric? Haven't we exhausted this line with the outgoing administration? Can we not look forward to reforming this ineffective and confusing combating WMD policy? I have only two thoughts - that either both political parties really believe this statement about "gravest threat that America faces" but just don't believe in putting any serious money against the problem - the average annual US government bioterrorism response funding is about $.5.5 billion, which is nice but not "missile defense" nice - or that they feel compelled to present these platitidues as a matter of form.

I'm much more worried about the violence caused by drug wars on the southern US border, the current nukes in the hands of Pakistan, India, and Israel, and availability of firearms in DC than terrorist WMDs. But I guess I'm strange like that - you know, worrying about real threats instead of imaginary ones. Just once, I would like to hear a senior government official say, "Terrorism is a grave concern, one that requires international cooperation to face down and defeat. However, the United States of America will never collapse due to the efforts of terrorists, even if they obtain and use weapons of mass destruction. We are too strong and resilient a society for that to occur."

Comments

[Belphagor1527]

J,

My vote is for the latter choice. No public official will ever say that terrorism (especially WMD terrorism - by the way, is cyber terrorism now in the WMD catagory?) isn't our top threat. I suspect that narrative is so firmly lodged in the national psyche that we'll be stuck with it for a long, long time.

Of course, you're correct about the drug war in Mexico but we won't have an honest discussion about that either since that would force us to critically examine our war on drugs.

[J.]

"by the way, is cyber terrorism now in the WMD catagory?"

Yes. Belphagor, you need to keep up... No, actually I think it's more academic laziness that people seem to want to include the possibility of cyber-attacks with bugs 'n gas as a part of a terrorist's arsenal, plus the fact that it's "unconventional" as opposed to good ol' guns and bombs. But honestly, while there will always be some dumb officials who want to use that line about terrorist WMDs, that doesn't mean we can't push them into the light of reason - if not by logic, then by embarrassing them by comparing them to Bush national security officials.

[Freddie]

Why shouldn't people in each party continue to discuss the "grave threat" posed by terrorist possession of WMD's? It's much easier to talk about the improbable and throw funding at this "problem"; addressing the real issues requires action. Action sometimes leads to not being re-elected.

It's the easy way out.

[Star Womanspirit]

THANKS FOR POSTING THIS!!

I think our "alledged" leaders want to keep our attention away from real life threats that have easy solutions....such as single payee insurance that would prevent the 18 thousand American deaths each year due to lack of health insurance...

Love your blog!!

[slag]

I don't know. I'm in agreement with you in a lot of ways, but there's one thing that makes terrorism an existential threat to the US: the way we react to it. We've normalized guns and drugs in a way that we haven't normalized certain kinds of terrorism. Consequently, we are more likely to overreact to it--abdicating our civic responsibilities and the rule of law as we did after 9/11. Even domestic terrorism is more normalized than foreign. We were devastated by Timothy McVeigh's attack on America but didn't let it freak us out. It's all about perception, and consequently, since our biggest collective fear is of foreign terrorism, that's what will destroy this country. America without its Constitutional rights is just a populated landmass.

[raft]

uh, firearms in DC?

One nuke going off in the National Mall would eliminate not only DC but the U.S. federal government. A total social collapse. and it's not an imaginary threat--more like a inevitable one.

the longer we can forestall a WMD attack on our major population centers, well, the longer you and i will still be alive.

[Tom Burns]

I've never understood why people who say this:

raft: "One nuke going off in the National Mall would eliminate not only DC but the U.S. federal government. A total social collapse. and it's not an imaginary threat--more like a inevitable one."

are generally considered tougher than people who say this:

Terrorism is a grave concern, one that requires international cooperation to face down and defeat. However, the United States of America will never collapse due to the efforts of terrorists, even if they obtain and use weapons of mass destruction. We are too strong and resilient a society for that to occur.

The problem with rafts comment is that:

1) It is absurd to say killing 100,000 people destorys a nation of 300,000,000+. Japan, Germany and Russia withstood far greater destruction. Are we weaker than they are? I think not.

2) The US is a very decentralized society - almost all actual governing happens at a state and local level. The states could also provide new reps & senators and a president quite quickly.

3) It gives terrorists hope and tells people who are angry that they should team up with al qaeda because they might be successful. It is false hope, but it is a false hope that could cost a lot of lives.

[Anon]

I think your analysis is usually quite good, but on this one you're dead wrong. The bio threat is very real and very scary.

The question you need to ask is why that recent report came to the conclusions it did.