A Pyrrhic victory

Few things in life are unambiguously good or bad. And so it is with those would-be plane assassins caught recently in the UK.

While it’s obviously positive people may have been spared death and destruction, the diligence of the British security network also has a subtle downside. It warms us to a dangerously limited definition of success.

Many will consider the arrests as a kind of victory, when in reality we have done nothing to resolve the problem. Some lives may have been saved, but have we given up something more precious in the process?

As Churchill, Orwell and many others realised, propaganda is a key weapon in conflict situations. It locks people into a certain way of thinking, often without the truth.

In the case of terrorism, the rhetoric is focused on emotive terms such as freedom and values. Compelling language coupled with passionate gesticulation gloss over the contradictions that typify our ineffective responses to those who are clearly in a desperate state of mind.

For example, how can invasive intelligence gathering, plastic cutlery on aircraft and dob-in a dodgey campaigns be about liberty when they take away freedoms we once had?

It’s therefore untrue to say our freedoms are being protected, as so many politicians and law enforcers do. Air travel regulations and various other measures in the “war on terror” are about saving lives - not freedom.

Yes, it may be true that survival is necessary before one can find freedom, but there is a vital distinction between them. This important detail is often overlooked by the likes of George W. Bush.

Counter-terrorist efforts are actually being traded off against our liberties. They are not necessarily complimentary as often implied.

As with all compromises, there is a balance to be struck. At some point, it may not be worth compromising our freedom in order to simply stay alive. This equilibrium can be hard to find and maintain, especially if those leading us deny the true relationship between the two.

People consistently value freedom above mere existence. In fact, it’s the source of the confounding irony that comes with war and violence.

War grants soldiers, freedom fighters and insurgents with the opportunity to pay the “ultimate” sacrifice and, in doing so, confirm their belief in a higher purpose. That’s why the West has been so ineffective in preventing suicide bombers. It’s hard to control someone who considers death of secondary significance.

Of course, this line of logic also shows up the senselessness of war. Someone who truly believed there was a cause greater than life would surely think it absurd to kill people in order to achieve desired outcomes.

War is a chance to prove we are more than mere animals, yet our defining attribute - human reason - also tells us it’s counter-productive. Little wonder the expression Catch-22 comes from a war story!

The only way to avoid having these contradictions promote irreparable self-delusion, is to be ruthlessly honest about the situation, however challenging the dilemmas.

We need leaders with more matter-of-factness and less spin. Otherwise we will slip into institutionalised conflict.

Killing or incarcerating terrorists cannot be a measure of success if we suppose there is something more worthy that life itself. This doesn’t mean the abandonment of law enforcement - it just needs to be kept in perspective and not conveniently thought of as a pathway to the kind of world we crave.

Similarly, it needs to be stated clearly that security legislation will not directly protect our freedom or values. It’s about keeping us alive, which of course is important but not our utmost aspiration. Compromising our most valuable goal may be acceptable, but let’s not kid ourselves about the real motivation.

We should be more explicit about the growing mass of controls and restrictions inspired by September 11, Bali and other atrocities. There are sign-posts for dangerous dogs and confronting advice on the health risks of smoking. Surely an appropriate distinction between preserving life and attaining freedom is also worthwhile?

Airport screening stations and proposed transparent bags used to carry-on luggage should also carry warnings for our sanity. I suggest the following sentiment as something to build upon.

This intrusion is required because we can’t afford to trust you. The Government, on your behalf, has judged such compromises to your personal freedom as reasonable, insofar as they reduce your prospects of being maimed or killed. We also understand that current measures can never make transparent the true intent of those who would consciously cause harm to others. Nevertheless, we hope you can capitalise on your improved safety by realising there is more to life than life itself.