Ask anyone – I am a calm person, adverse to drama. We all agree that hysteria in the face of danger is counter-productive. Yet … when I look around and see folks seemingly oblivious and ambivalent to serious threats, even I concede that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction into a kind of passive miasma.
When Al Qaeda’s leader Ayman al-Zawahiri vows to avenge the death of Osama bin Laden “blood for blood” in another day like 9/11 - I believe him. When Brig Gen Reza Naghdi of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard says that “the filthy Americans and Zionists should not think that … they can divert our nation from its path of Jihad” … and threatens to kill American military generals - I believe him. Back in 1999, when Saddam Hussein said “Oh sons of Arabs and the Arab Gulf, rebel against the foreigner … take revenge for your dignity, holy places, security, interests and exalted values.” - I believed him. When the Covenant of Hamas states “ranks will close, fighters joining other fighters, and masses everywhere in the Islamic world will come forward in response to the call of duty, loudly proclaiming: ‘Hail to Jihad!’” – I believe that is their intention.
Why wouldn’t I?
Whether or not someone is able to act on their threat isn’t the question. Motivated, people will use imagination, patience and all kinds of available resources to accomplish their stated goals. A lot was made of looking for weapons of mass destruction as justification for U.S. involvement in Iraq. Finding the means of attack is only relevant when you are attempting to bring someone to justice and need to prove a crime. We don’t have to find the means to prove that we are in danger or threatened.
In support of taking the threat (more) seriously, I would also point out that our enemy doesn’t play by our rules. Remember, terrorists are the folks who decapitate innocent journalists on video and host public stoning of women accused of adultery. And murder 3,000 civilians on September 11th using available resources.
Cognitive dissonance is a theory of social psychology that addresses the discomfort we feel when we hold two conflicting (dissonant) ideas at the same time. To feel better, people change their beliefs and attitudes and do so via justification and denial. I want to live in a safe world but I read and hear about threats against my country and its citizens. It is uncomfortable and scary to live with the idea that terrorists are at this moment wanting and planning to attack us. But rather than deny the threat or excuse our enemies, how about we accept the reality and act intelligently to counter it?
I don’t advocate going to war with half the world. I’d like to see soldiers home and safe. I’d like peace on earth. But when through their words and actions our enemies show that they are sincerely upset with us and mean us harm, I suggest we believe them. Accept that we are dealing with an asymmetrical war and a real threat that must be mitigated.
And elect a leadership that focuses on this most important duty, to preserve our way of life by keeping us safe!
Being realistic about threats and proactive in terms of mitigating those threats (and their cumulative affect on our society) is not as ‘sexy’ as wringing your hands and crying about how unfair this (disaster) is to you and your special interest group.
In a society where meeting to discuss issues and air all views…even those without any credence…takes the place of learned, thoughtful leadership and decision making, what can you expect in terms of survival.
It can’t and it won’t…but we’ll be real glad to have a sound bite about the unfairness of it on CNN.
A good example of cognitive dissonance being ignored is when a victim rationalizes away fear.
The following book by Gavin de Becker, The Gift of Fear, helps us remember to use our basic instincts to avoid becoming a victim.
https://www.gavindebecker.com/resources/book/the_gift_of_fear/