On the spectacle of terrorism

As I wrote about the differences between Bush and Obama in their responses to terrorist threats, I found myself ruminating on the “why” of the situation. We know that the Bush mindset is one of constant fear of terrorist annihilation, of a capital-t Terrorist force that threatens our very existence at all times. Why, though?

It would be too easy to call it a power grab. Certainly the Bush administration and their corporate buddies in the defense industry stood to gain quite a bit in exploiting the “War on Terror”, be it in no-bid contracts or in electoral victories. The likes of Halliburton and Blackwater (now Xe) profited handsomely from the dual wars, and Bush and the GOP rode to victory on the back of terrorism in 2002 and 2004.

That might explain the motivation of our politicians, but it doesn’t explain the motivation of the cheerleaders. Bill Kristol and Sean Hannity have nothing to gain by hyping the terrorist threat outside of maybe a ratings boost, and it’s doubtful that they’d be playing the part of covert political operative by willfully deceiving the nation simply to affect elections. So what could be motivating the right-wing media, bloggers, and the people who support them?

To answer that, we have to play armchair psychologist. It certainly isn’t satisfying to live under constant fear of death at the hands of a shadowy enemy. What certainly is, though, is to live under the impression that you are destined to be the grand victor in a cosmic struggle of Good vs Evil.

Lots of the “War on Terror” trumpeters draw inspiration from the likes of 24 or The Dark Knight, which helps explain the mindset. They see characters like Batman and Jack Bauer and want to be like them, righteous heroes who stood up in the face of monumental evil and triumphed at all costs. It isn’t about feeling afraid, it’s about feeling as though you have a Purpose that is greater than yourself.

Hence our “War on Terror” is often described in grandiose terms that paint it not as a specific war against a single, focused enemy. Instead we’re told it’s a battle for civilization itself that knows no borders, with an enemy that could be anywhere and everywhere. They could be in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Yemen, in Palestine, they could be in your own neighborhood. The fight against terrorism is the greatest struggle humanity has ever faced, and only the strong are able to do what it takes to win.

It’s why Osama bin Laden drifted out of the spotlight over time. By focusing on the guy actually responsible for the September 11th attacks, it kept the idea too small. Bin Laden is just one man, and if he’d been captured and executed, the war would have ended. Can’t have that. It’s why we hear about “the lessons of September 11th” rather than dealing with events directly related to the attack. The war must be as monumental as possible.

By inflating the “War on Terror” to Biblical proportions, these cheerleaders feel as though they are part of an epic resistance, protecting the world against an enemy that stands poised to destroy not just our buildings and our lives, but the very fabric of civilization itself.

Apply it to the politicians as well. When George W Bush stood up at the podium and triumphantly described the terrorist attacks he’d foiled or why the wars were so crucial, he was crafting himself to be The Warrior President. Not just some guy in a suit muddling with tax proposals and budgets, no, Bush the Warrior stood at the helm as America faced its most terrifying villain yet, and only he had the fortitude to see the battle through. While soft “liberals” might be too weak to stand up to the enemy, Bush the Warrior did not blink, and nor did his supporters.

Men who played with GI Joes as children and failed to grow up, that’s what we’re dealing with.