As we approach the tenth anniversary of the most devastating terrorist
attack in American history, a moment of quiet reflection for the dead
will be in order. For there will be no end of cacophony over the
meaning of the event and its implications for American's future. I do
not know if there is consolation for the horrible deaths of those who
were murdered on that September morning almost ten years ago.
I would not want myself or my loved ones to perish in a conflagration
like the one that took down the Towers, or for that matter in the wall
of water that eliminated the coast of Japan, or the earthquake that
shattered Haiti. Any horrible, painful death — whether through the
agency of man or nature — should be averted wherever foresight,
preparation, or quick action can do so.
I think, however, that the psychological impact of the 9/11 terror
attacks has had the intended effect of shifting our perspective and our
resources to our detriment. We have exhausted our economy, curtailed
our liberties, and wreaked havoc in the world, and yet how many people
believe that we are a stronger, more secure, more prosperous, more
hopeful nation than we were on that fatal day in 2001?
We must guard against terrorism, but it is only one of the many things
we must guard against. Disaster, accident, disease, and poverty all claim more
deaths than terrorism, and yet neither disaster relief, medical research,
development aid, nor anti-poverty efforts can grab the headlines the way
terrorism does. It is conceptually easy to kill a terrorist; it is
conceptually very difficult to run an economy. One should not conclude,
however, that the former is worthy of more attention than the latter.
The failure to manage the economy in a manner that creates prosperity
and opportunity for all Americans is the single greatest
existential threat to America today, for without that prosperity and
opportunity, we can neither care for our citizens at home nor repel our
enemies abroad. Close behind is the threat that we will sacrifice our
liberty in a false bargain to purchase greater security. After that we
might consider the ongoing challenge of relations with hostile states
such as Iran and North Korea and great powers such as China and India.
Terror is a priority somewhere down the list: we can save more lives at
the National Institutes of Health than at the Department of Homeland Security.
And we must be creative in our approach. It is too early to tell, but
the peaceful revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia may go farther in
discrediting Al Qaeda and bringing peace to the Middle East than all our
wars. For all our blood-soaked history, we do better in the world
forging alliances and supporting democracy — as a matter of policy
— than we do unleashing the daunting — but expensive —
power of the United States military.
The lure of world dominance is a seductive but ultimately disastrous
chimera. We need a military that can discourage aggression and defeat
it when it is not discouraged. We do not need to send expeditions to
little countries all around the world. We also need to have an economy
that can sustain our military. As it stands, the level of our military
expenditures is undermining the strength of the economy that pays for
the military in the long term. We need to cut the military now to save
it, and ourselves. We can do better in the war on terror with a smaller
military and a stronger diplomatic corps, and doing so will also allow
us to focus on the biggest threats to our lives, liberty, and property in
the coming decade: the erosion of our economy and the disenfrachisement
and impoverishment of our people.