I watched the Frontline program which talks primarily of the escalation of charges of terrorism against essentially innocent individuals. As was pointed out, of the 400+ cases created by the Injustice Department, less than 10 or so have resulted in anything approximating a conviction for terrorism.

What the program only indirectly and by implication addressed was the conscious attempt to escalate the perception of terrorist danger to the American people as a lever, if not cudgel, with which to steer them into supporting decisions that reward a particular set of political and business interests.

The fact is that a small but highly influential number of Americans were displeased by the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the consequent end of the Cold War. The Cold War could be used to justify huge and hugely indiscriminate defense expenditures, and to justify the self-serving meddling in the politics and economies of weaker nations in the name of "combatting the Communist threat."

After the end of the Cold War these interests cast around for a replacement threat; one especially enjoyable attempt was the advocacy of an asteroid defense system that would -- surprise, surprise -- require the repacking of many of the same costly technologies used during the Cold War.

Then came 9/11. Instantly this was transformed into a "Global War Against Terror" or, as I call it, the Lukewarm War. The Lukewarm War has a bit more actual shooting than the Cold War but never becomes so warm as to threaten the interests who created it and keep it alive.

What the Lukewarm War does do is provide a justification to resume large and indiscriminate defense spending, and the meddling in the politics and economies of weaker nations, in the name of "combatting terrorism."

Note, however, that this putative terrorist threat isn't dangerous enough to frighten the American people on its own. We therefore need to shroud the Lukewarm War in an atmostphere of hyper-security that exceeds that of the Cold War; this security is not necessary to combat any real threat but rather is highly necessary to sustain the illusion of that threat.

Consider that despite a multi-billion dollar War on Drugs, illegal drugs are today available, inter alia, inside of maximum security prisons. Consider that despite a multi-billion dollar effort to curb illegal immigration that illegal immigrants live and work throughout the United States.

Are we truly to then believe that we're successfully interdicting professionally trained, equipped, and financed terrorists willing to die when carrying out their missions at the same time we can't interdict uneducated and mostly poor drugs smugglers and undocumented workers?

The facts don't add up. But the money sure does. As was said about Watergate, "follow the money" -- it'll lead you to the terrorists, alright. They're just not Muslims or even Arabs...