Here’s a dream I had this week. I am at the airport going to a conference on security in Texas. I am pulled out of line by security. It seems random. I am taken to a room where there’s more security. It turns out they know who I am and are well-organized. Then they leave. I am alone in the room and, when I go out, the airport is empty. So there is no way to get to the conference on security. There’s security, but there’s no security. They set up a huge apparatus, then leave you alone.

Let me not-so-freely associate:

Last week, U.S. intelligence officials testified to Congress on security. The CIA director said, “Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists,” who “will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban terrorism.” Another agency said, “Our policies in the Middle East fuel Islamic resentment.” The FBI director said, “It may be only a matter of time before al-Qaeda or another group attempts to use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons.”

George Bush recently told the press: “If I was the leader of Israel . . . I’d be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon. . . . We will support Israel if — if there’s a — if their security is threatened.” This will be read everywhere as encouraging Israel to bomb Iran, as it bombed Iraq for its nuclear program in 1981. Never mind the rights and wrongs of an attack. I am simply noting that everyone, including U.S. experts, says all-out U.S. support for Israel is the strongest factor fuelling “Islamic resentment.” The fact Israel has had nuclear bombs for decades increases the rage.

Continuing tales of U.S. and “coalition” torture, far beyond Abu Ghraib prison, will have a similar impact on rage and recruitment. Again, I am leaving aside moral objections.

A news report: “’This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous,’ Bush told a news conference after talks with European Union leaders. ‘Having said that, all options are on the table,’ he added, drawing laughter at a clear reference to military action.”

A 2000 document issued by a body to which Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and other high U.S. officials belonged said the group’s hopes for expanding U.S. military power would take a very long time “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.” So when 9/11 happened, they had anticipated it to some degree. Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice immediately urged it to be used to speed up projects like war on Iraq. I don’t mean they were behind 9/11, or knew it was coming. But they had incorporated such an event in their thinking.

Now this part is wide awake: We are in a new phase of the post-9/11 era. I am not saying U.S. leaders want another, nuclear 9/11, or are trying to provoke it. But they seem ready to accept it as a likely consequence of their policies and perhaps as even helpful. At any rate, they press on, knowing it is likely and, in honesty, telling Americans so — though they do not admit their policies make it far likelier. How they justify this prospect to themselves we don’t know. As leading to a safer world at high cost? As locking in their vision of U.S. power for a century? As necessary because the first 9/11 didn’t quite solidify their control, they almost lost an election, Iraq hasn’t turned out as expected? As prelude to the Second Coming?

But for those of us who don’t consider, say, one little dirty bomb here an acceptable cost, it’s worth being aware of their assumptions. The single hardest thing for citizens under elected governments to grasp is why their chosen leaders might pursue goals that would seem hideous to almost everyone else in the society.

A note on method: I am aware that recounting a dream is not normal practice. But I believe many useful insights originally appear in idiosyncratic ways: a sudden image, association or mental leap. Then we back up and try to justify them as emerging from a logical, impersonal train of thought. I’m just skipping that phase. Besides, a friend said: “If you’d seen it in a movie, no one would mind you using it in a column.”

rick_salutin_small_24_1_1_1_1_0

Rick Salutin

Rick Salutin is a Canadian novelist, playwright and critic. He is a strong advocate of left wing causes and writes a regular column in the Toronto Star.