There’s a nice, short article in the current issue of The Atlantic Monthly making the case that the public perception of terrorists is wildly at odds with the rather inept realities of most terrorists. The basic idea is that if we mocked terrorists more often, if we publicly exposed them as the fools that they mostly are, it would be easier to combat them. From suicide bombers who don’t manage to kill anyone but themselves to dumbasses who can’t even do that, the litany of folly is pretty impressive:
In Afghanistan, as in many cultures, a manly embrace is a time-honored tradition for warriors before they go off to face death. Thus, many suicide bombers never even make it out of their training camp or safe house, as the pressure from these group hugs triggers the explosives in suicide vests. According to several sources at the United Nations, as many as six would-be suicide bombers died last July after one such embrace in Paktika.
The article goes on to mention the stupidity of the Underpants Bomber and the failed Times Square bomber. What gets left out, however is telling.
Nowhere do the names of “Bush” or “Obama” appear, nor the terms “Republican” or “Democrat”. That an article ostensibly about the public psychology of terrorism does not mention the vastly different approaches of the two sides is a damning oversight. Bush the Younger and his cadre of fanatics spent seven years deliberately stoking public anxieties. They did it so effectively and for so long that the childish press corps has come to expect nothing else. Witness the buzz of the past several weeks, as they actually debate how effectively Barack Obama can pretend to be angry in public.
Yes, a lot of terrorists are dope smoking, porn watching, morons. The Atlantic piece paints the gap between perception and reality as one of simple ignorance: If only the public knew! But the reality is that the Reds push that image deliberately because it fits their theme of an America that’s fragile and vulnerable and in need of hard nosed Republican leadership. The press basically lets them get away with it because it fits a well defined narrative and the press is nothing if not intellectually lazy. (That it allows them to produce scary news pieces that result in pageviews and Nielsen points doesn’t hurt either.)
It’s all well and good to want to puncture a myth. But when there are a lot of powerful people with vested interests in keeping that myth, it’s just blowing smoke if you don’t take a stand and point out why that myth exists in the first place.
