Another Cowardly Act

Whenever members of the Bush administration start talking about... well, just about anything... it doesn't take them very long to revert to a very narrow vocabulary of emotion-laden buzzwords that are designed to yank people's chain and get them to agree to whatever misbegotten folly the administration wants to do next. Hopefully the Obama people will exercise a bit more subtlety... but in the meantime we're stuck with high officials whose vocabulary rivals that of the average rap singer for sheer monotony and lack of variety.

This problem becomes most acute when they are talking about "terrorism" -- itself a buzzword -- and about what our response to it ought to be. We all know the tired litany by now -- stay the course, don't cut and run, etc. The best of all, of course, is "credibility", which is constantly invoked as a reason not to end a war which was a total hoax to begin with. "Damaging America's credibility" is about as likely to happen as "damaging Madonna's virginity"... and yet they continue to use this as a threat.

One particular descriptive term which has been suspect from the start is the word "cowardly" to describe terrorist attacks. Of course one has to distinguish, right off the bat, between "terrorist attacks" and legitimate acts of "defense". The former are the acts of men without uniforms who are not members of a standing army belonging to a national government whose legitimacy we recognize. The latter are acts of men with uniforms who are members of an army belonging to a national government whose legitimacy we do recognize -- usually our own. Otherwise, there are no significant differences. When "terrorists" set off a bomb in a marketplace, it's a "cowardly act" perpetrated on "innocent civilians". When we bomb a wedding party in Aghanistan, it's a case of "collateral damage" which occurred as part of a necessary "defensive" operation... and besides, what kind of idiots would be getting married in a war zone, and besides, those nasty terrorists are always hiding behind women in wedding gowns. Plus, let's admit, that couple would only have started having kids who would probably have turned into terrorists. So call it a "pre-emptive strike".

So you can see that I'm unimpressed by the allegedly vast differences in M.O. between us and the "terror masters". But now let's talk about this word "cowardly". Many of our attacks on Iraqi and Afghan civilians are made using unmanned drones, so there is absolutely no risk of any sort to actual personnel, who are sitting in bunkers miles away. Many of the rest are made from various sorts of aircraft, and in nearly all cases the crew gets back to base in time for happy hour. The "cowardly attacks" by terrorists, on the other hand, typically involve at least one of them voluntarily giving up his (or her) life for a cause they believe in. Now we may not share their belief, needless to say... but to call a guy who rides a motor scooter into a public square with fifty pounds of explosive strapped on the back, and then proceeds to set it off, a "coward" seems a bit far-fetched... and yet, once again, this is what all of our politicians and other wordsmiths repeat, parrot-like, on a daily basis.

I think the real problem here is not just one of perception, or of "labeling". It's that we simply can't comprehend the motivations of these people -- what "makes them tick". Is there anyone in this country who believes in anything enough to die for it, and I don't mean as a passive martyr, which may be highly commendable in some cases, but as the result of direct action? Americans can almost understand this sort of thing when it comes to dying for one's country (which, again, is seldom "voluntary" in the strict sense, and when it is it merits the Medal of Honor). But we certainly have no historical experience of this sort when it comes to religious beliefs or anything else under the heading of "ideas". The whole notion of dying for something seems ludicrous to us -- what's the sense of doing something that results in your death, because then you won't be around to enjoy the fruits of your labor? And how can an "idea" trump ordinary, everyday survival needs? And besides, the people doing this sort of thing aren't exactly the comic-book G.I. Joe types -- they're scruffy, dirty, smelly ragheads, and any so-called "ideas" they might have can't possibly have any value or validity just in general, to say nothing of being a reason to do something that results in their death. So the whole thing is incomprehensible and absurd. (This is why we're required to make fun of their alleged notion that they will be welcomed into Moslem heaven by a bevy of willing virgins. All of which is a really great way to express "respect for diversity".)

So now we turn to the 9-11 conspirators and their "surprise announcement" that they would, indeed, confess to the crimes they're accused of, because (implication) they are perfectly proud of what they did and they're willing to accept the consequences, whatever they may be. This just adds more layers to the incomprehensibility! Not only did they perform this "cowardly" act, but now they're doing something even more "cowardly", namely accepting full responsibility for it. And this just blows people's minds. According to a news article, the judge was totally flustered by this announcement and didn't know what to do next. Obviously, something funny happened on the way to "truth, justice, and the American way". We have an enemy that is totally alien, and we can't deal with it. And not only that, it may turn out that they can't be executed because, by confessing, they avoid a jury trial. (Did they know this? I doubt it, because the judge wasn't sure himself.) And, needless to say, the families of the 9-11 victims are feeling a bit ambivalent because, yes, they have a confession, but will they now be able to drag out the proceedings for weeks, or months, with hundreds of "victim impact statements"? Seems unlikely.

So here we go again. The Power has had its nose tweaked -- again! -- by a bunch of goatherds. But see how clueless the people on our side remain: The terrorists haven't "repented". Well, no... because they don't think they did anything wrong. Like it or not, that's the way it is. Don't expect these guys to start blubbering in open court; they're made of much sterner stuff than the garden variety domestic murderer. And... they "showed a complete lack of contrition". Well, yes... can't we get it through our heads that we're dealing with people who believe in something? The "something" they believe in may be wrong, or delusional, or evil, or any number of things, but damn it, they do believe, and they are acting accordingly, and this is what we simply can't grasp because we have no cultural frame of reference into which to plug these data. The Age of Belief in America is long since over with. We have had other "ages" since -- the Age of Greed being the most prominent, but one could include the Age of the Internet, the Age of Clinton, and the upcoming Age of What the F*** Happened to my Retirement Portfolio -- but "belief" just no longer computes, and the attitudes and actions that follow upon belief no longer compute. We're in a situation with the terrorists similar to that we experienced with the Japanese during World War II, and to a lesser extent the Chinese during the Korean War. What might have been normal in the West, let's say at the time of the Crusades, is now considered "extremism" or "fanaticism". Our last allegedly "extremist" politician was Barry Goldwater, and look where it got him.

Aside from the fact that this all has the Bush administration stopped in its tracks, it's going to be interesting to see how the Obama administration handles the case when it's dumped into their laps. Will they have any more comprehension of the power of belief than the Bushites do? It's just possible they will -- but will the rhetoric then change? This may be more than we can hope for.