The war on terror, launched after the attacks of the WTC and the Pentagon, has a tremendous impact on the daily life of people. Among other things, it allows the US government to scare the people every once in a while. Some call it even brain-washing. Among them is Zbigniew Brezinski, the national security adviser to Jimmy Carter. This weekend, an article from him was published in the Washington Post in which he criticizes this rather inefficient war, where some odd places in the middle of nowhere get more money from the Homeland Security Department for anti-terror measures than the big cities (makes sense, since the enemy certainly has more interest in the rural US, where he can kill lots of corn plants and cows than in the big cities, where millions are contributing to the biggest GDP in the world...).

One product of the war on terror, I find particularly funny: The national database of possible targets. It lists all kinds of targets, which are prone for terrorist attacks. According to Brezinski, the number of entries grew from 160 in 2003 to some 300,000 in 2006. But what exactly consider the responsible civil servants worth saving? Well, among other things, there are 25 golf courses (just imagine one of the grossly overpaid managers in this country gets hit by a bomb), 159 cruise ships, 1,305 casinos (one would not want to renounce gambling, when the world goes under...), 163 water parks (according to the data shown by Al Gore, large parts of Florida would be flooded in the worst case of global warming. It certainly makes more sense to invest lots of money to protect water parks in the war on terror instead of launching an effective war on global warming) and - this is really my favorite - 34 Coca-Cola bottlers and distributors. Imagine what a disaster this would be, if Coca-Cola would not be able to deliver its products to some areas in the country after the terrorists (Pepsi Cola or the Anti-Capitalists, perhaps?) have attacked? One starts to wonder, what the purpose of this database really is: is it the answer of a terrified country to be prepared in case another terrorist attack happens or is it yet another example on how the administration is setting up mechanisms to funneling lots of money into the hands of party contributors? The question, of course, does not have an answer, or I certainly do not have it. In any case, it is a terrific example what can be achieved with effective lobbying. Cheers.

Interested to read the article in the Post? Terrorized-by-War-on-Terror (pdf, 86 KB)