Editor's Note: This column is a counterpoint to "The world is not as scary as you think"
A previous opinion column from The State Press suggested that the world is safer than we think. Personally, I wouldn't call a world where a ruler gets to use chemical weapons constantly with no consequences a very scary one.
To create such a false image and take this relative safety for granted as a spontaneous world order is very dangerous and counterproductive to its very objective of a happier society.
Just during the past week, we witnessed the 15th anniversary of 9/11, and a few days before, North Korea had its largest ever nuclear test. As Elliott Abrams, former Deputy National Security Adviser to President George W. Bush and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations said, “We’re kind of in a second Cold War. ... Russia is attempting to gain influence over the former Soviet states, and it is acting as an actor hostile to the United States.”
Sure, the world isn’t as scary as it was at the peak of the two World Wars or during the Cuban missile crisis, but this is also the wrong comparison to make. The world isn’t as safe it was in 1980s and 1990s, and it certainly isn’t as safe as it was on when Barack Obama was inaugurated.
President Obama's "leading from behind" doctrine has created a global vacuum of power which terrorist organizations and autocratic regional hegemons, uncommitted to global peace, have filled. His "pivot to Asia" was meant to bring much needed attention to the rise of China, but in practice, it distracted attention from chaos in the Middle East, a region Obama admittedly wants his hands washed off of.
Globalization is a wonderful phenomenon. It brings people closer together and helps decrease the global rate of poverty. However, it also makes perils of terrorism more present than ever before. To give you just one example, globalization made it possible for al-Qaeda to plot and execute 9/11 attacks from Afghanistan, causing greatest casualties in American history.
Today, it has made it possible for the Islamic State to create a cult where its cultists plot and execute lone wolf and coordinated attacks in the Western world. The number of such attacks goes dramatically higher when one takes into account their operations in Iraq, Syria and Libya.
It is true that there is a better chance for somebody to be hit by an asteroid than shot by a terrorist, but there are two fallacies in this argument: 1. Asteroid death is a result of an accident with a steady rate. Terror attacks are a growing phenomenon since late 20th century and has been just increasing and result of no accident but long-term plotting. 2. This argument dismisses the role of public policy.
Most Americans are immune to terror attacks because of brave Americans who have taken the fight outside the U.S. and public policy programs — from surveillance programs to visa admission and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 — which are a result of public concerns.
Beyond terrorism, there are even more dangerous threats we face today as a nation. North Koreans might be starving, but they certainly are not short of any nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, they are also not short of a maniac of a Supreme Leader either, an irrational actor who should not be trusted with matches but somehow has been granted access to a nuclear arsenal.
“When it comes to North Korea, it’s very clear that the North Koreans are developing not only warheads, but better and better delivery systems,” said Abrams. “They keep extending the range of their missiles and improving their ability to put warheads on them. That should be a worry to us given the unpredictable nature of that regime.”
Speaking of dangerous countries, Russia is making aggressions against its neighbors, and many experts are concerned that a Baltic country might be the next target. This could trigger NATO’s Article 5, putting the West against Russia and its allies, triggering World War III, which would make World War II look like a pillow fight.
A new romance for isolationism and the global rise of nationalism are among the most dangerous global threats. Last time the world oversaw rise of nationalism and economic segregations, two World Wars happened, each of them worse than the previous multi-national war.
Sure, Americans are relatively safe. But they are only safer in direct comparison to others, and this safety is not permanent nor necessarily long term. Besides, it is not a spontaneous situation. As Abrams said, “you really have to have your head in the sand to think that the global system can maintain itself on autopilot without American leadership and with diminishing American influence.”
This safety is the fruit of the decisions they have made by adopting the right public policies to stay safe. It is the direct result of their constant awareness of what is happening within and beyond their borders. And, sadly, it has been fading with the retreat of America from the world.
I agree, we, as Americans, should not be “victims of fear.” But we definitely should be cautious not to take this safety as granted. On September 10, 2001, we took our safeties for granted. We didn’t think “terrorism was worth losing any sleep over” when we went to bed that night.
In 2008, we were exhausted by our international interventions, but then dirt hit the fan, and we came to regret it. And now, we are left with two auditionees for the White House whose platforms are that they are not as clueless and incompetent to fix this mess as the other one.
“Superpowers don’t get to retire,” but they do get to fail if their peoples ignore the realities of the world, even though hurtful.
Reach the columnist at shaykhatiri@asu.edu or follow @shaykhatiri on Twitter.
Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
