Why are we spending so much on anti-terrorism?

September 11, 2001 was a terrible day. A couple thousand Americans lost their lives in a flash and the most powerful country on earth was shocked into realizing that two oceans did not protect it from terrorism. How did the US react? It declared war on terrorism and began not only to hunt down the perpetrators of the terrorist attack, but also to incriminate the countries that harbored these terrorists. Front and foremost, Iraq. With claims that this dangerous country not only harbored and supported terrorists, but was also in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), the US declared war on the country and invaded it. With Iraq "taken care of", the US began to concentrate on another supposed haven for terrorists: Afghanistan. And, thus, the next military campaign began.

In the years between September 11, 2001 and now, the US has not only prosecuted its war on terrorism overseas, but has also begun the process of fortifying its defenses against future terror attacks. The department of homeland security was founded, countless security enhancements to the nations airports and shipping ports were added, and Americans were stripped of rights and freedoms - all to keep us safe from the terrorists.


Enough for the history lesson. I want to pose a question:

Is the war on terrorism really being fought to rid the world of Al Qaeda or is it being waged in order to keep the US military and defense related industries in business?

Before you dismisses the question as too ludicrous or cynical, let's look at some points:

• During the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the US spent hundreds of billions of dollars every year to build nuclear weapons, fighter jets, bombers, stealth planes, and hair-brained ideas such as Star Wars. Once the Soviet Union imploded, the trillions of dollars which previously flowed into the defense industry coffers began to flow less freely. But have you heard of any defense contractors going out of business?
• No need for defense companies to fear: while the Soviet Union was in its death throes, Iraq - previously an ally of the US and whom the US even supplied with weapons (made by the same defense contractors that supplied the US military, of course) - became new enemy #1 when it invaded Kuwait. Phenomenal amounts of military munitions were spent (and subsequently needed to be replenished) in Operation Desert Storm.
• The second Iraq war and subsequent occupation of Afghanistan cost - and continues to cost - the American tax payer trillions of dollars. Almost none of it is actually going to the Iraqi or Afghan people. Most of it goes into the coffers of the defense contractors to pay for the weapons that destroyed - and continues to destroy - those countries. And it goes to defense contractors to "rebuild" the countries' infrastructure which their weapons previously destroyed.
• At home, we're spending billions of dollars more on supposed anti-terrorist technologies and processes. There are the full-body-scanners at airports, the thousands of new cameras in our cities, the various emergency response centers, computers that monitor all telephone conversations for subversive words, etc.

Now, one has to ask oneself: why does the US tax payer put up with these enormous expenditures? Because they're told that all these things will make them safer. And Americans, after 9/11 felt terribly unsafe. The ever-present "terrorist" bogey man was the perfect mechanism through which to keep up the fear and justify almost any expenditure.

I think the expenditure on anti-terrorist activities are way out of proportion to the dangers posed by terrorism. We're told that countless terrorist acts have been prevented because of the job our government does to protect us, but we don't know whether this is true. And even if it is, what kinds of terrorist acts are being prevented? An envelope with poison being sent to a politician is an act of terrorism, but do we need to spend trillions of dollars to protect a few citizens? European countries have faced constant terrorist acts for 50+ years without driving themselves bankrupt. How are they doing it? Not by invading other countries or waging a futile, never-ending war on an elusive, intangible enemy. Instead, Europeans have tried to prevent major terrorist acts and, more importantly, have tried to address some of the root causes of terrorism. It is much more cost effective to prevent someone from becoming desperate enough to turn into a terrorist than to prevent terrorist acts.

What are the root causes of terrorism against the United States? I don't know. But I suspect that the Israel-Palestinian situation is a major contributor. For the past half century, the US has stood as the staunchest ally and protector of Israel, a country which came into existence at the expense of the Palestinian people. A country that continues to deny the Palestinian people basic human rights. I imagine that a people whose plight is ignored by the world at large for half a century can be desperate enough to turn to terrorism.

Am I way off the mark? I invite any discussion on the subject.

Government Employment - The New Welfare

Government is the fastest growing employer in the US - no small feat, given that it's already the largest employer (counting both federal and local government). It makes you wonder what all these employees actually do! Well, even years ago, when government was a lot smaller than it is today, most people believed: not too much! So, as people are drowning in debt, losing their jobs, their home's value is decreasing along with their salaries, it is not surprising that they don't take too kindly to the ever increasing cost of government.

The fact that government employ is a safe haven from the crumbling economy has not gone unnoticed by the masses: more and more people are flocking to Uncle Sam's warm employment embrace. Why not? They're hiring. Government workers are still getting pay increases. People working for Uncle Sam (or for the State) don't have to worry about health-care costs! The government doesn't have to live on a budget - it can either increase taxes on its citizens or borrow money (which will eventually increase taxes on a future generation).

Since most government workers don't do much at all, it can be described as an extremely lucrative form of Welfare. It's extremely nice for the people on it, but not so nice for the people having to pay for it. And it can't go on forever. Before this great recession, the parasites growing within government went unnoticed - the population was relatively upbeat about the future - salaries were increasing faster than inflation and they people's prime asset - their home - appeared to be increasing in value even faster than that! But now, things have changed. Citizens in financial straits do tend to notice when their disappearing wealth goes even faster thanks to the unrestrained spending in government.

I am amazed that US citizens are not up in arms over their government's lack of financial restraint. Although I'm an Obama supporter, I'm beginning to doubt even he can restructure this growing house of cards. Think about it: if 1/3 of the US population works for the government and they all vote NO on legislation that would cause them to lose benefits, what chance does such legislation have of passing? Voter turnout in the US is too low to compete with such an enormous "special interest group".

The US can be a great country again - if it addresses some fundamental problems. Below is my list of problems and possible solutions:

Problem #1: Too many "leeches" and not enough "producers".
An economy cannot survive if not enough of its citizens produce useful goods or services. Government workers do not produce anything. Why, then, is government (federal and state) the biggest employer in the country? Because everyone is flocking to government employ as a way to make a cushy, stable, and lucrative living. Some, don't even do any useful work whatsoever - betting on the fact that one rarely gets fired by the government. Government is not the only place where "leeches" have proliferated. Just look at the number of lawyers and tax accountants in this country. There's a saying - we have 5% of the world population but 95% of the world's lawyers. And most of them only exist off the backs of "producers". Tax accountants exist mainly because of our overly complex tax system - created by "leech" government workers trying to justify their salary.

Solution: make government workers as accountable for their work as private workers. If workers don't perform, let them go! If workers have no meaningful work to do, let them go or re-assign them!

Problem #2: Too many lawsuits.
With the government as our shining light of proper behavior (see #1 above), we've become a country of unresponsible people. Nothing is our fault - everything is someone else's. So why not "leech" off others and make a quick fortune by suing them for perceived wrongs?

Solution: Tort reform. If someone brings on a lawsuit and loses, they need to pay the defendants' legal fees. This would immediately eliminate the many frivolous lawsuits clogging our legal system. Lawyers would have to start pursuing more productive pursuits.

Problem #3: An inferior K-12 educational system.
This is due to a combination of no accountability on the teachers (bad teachers can't be fired - they just stay on 'til they get to retire) and insufficient funds due to "leech" workers around them (e.g. superintendents of only 1-2 schools sipphoning off monies that should go to the teachers.

Solution: Just as with problem #1, accountability is the answer: teachers who don't teach effectively (as measured by national, standardized tests), should be let go. Similarly, superintendents need to show that they're managing a sufficient number of schools to justify their job (e.g. as managers, they have to manage at least 5-7 schools!) On the other hand, pay the most effective teachers and administrators more!

Problem #4: An unhealthy healthcare system. Many inefficiencies due to lack of computerization raise costs. Even more so, frivolous lawsuits (see problem #2) tremendously raise costs (costs of litigation, settlement, resultant liability insurance for doctors, etc.)

Solution: Some of the high costs would be brought down by fixing problem #2. Computerization is also pretty straight-forward with the only "stumbling block" being the need to keep citizen data private. Perhaps the solution is one in which the government keeps citizens' medical data on an ultra-secure data center which can only be accessed by the citizen! They would be able to download their medical data onto a portable device (e.g. flash drive) to take it to their doctor. Updates by the doctor are also stored on the device and, at the citizen's convenience uploaded back to the government's data center. In other words, the citizens have full control over their medical data and the government's servers act as a "backup".