Hurricanes vs. Terrorists

James Wolcott has a rather asinine post in which he claims that conservatives are eager to minimize the horror of Katrina’s death toll because, if it surpasses that of September 11^th, it will weaken the rationale for the war on terror. This is such an absurdly facile claim that one wonders why the normally biting (if eye-rollingly off base) Wolcott even bothered to make it, except as a feeble attempt to stick it to the NRO crew.

What Wolcott completely fails to understand is that explaining the difference between September 11^th and Hurricane Katrina is not tantamount to minimizing Katrina’s horror. Let’s be utterly clear: Katrina was a horrific, unbelievably sad event. Its tragedy would be difficult, if not impossible, to overstate, and it warrants the strongest possible response both logistically (future planning) and emotionally.

But a hurricane and a terrorist attack require patently different responses for the incredibly obvious reason that one of them was intentional. Despite what enviros like Wolcott might think, hurricanes are not the result of Gaia’s wrath. They are just another “natural” event, a part of the wild that we’ve yet to learn how to control (and may never). If anything, weather catastrophes should be proof that the greeny ideal of returning to the chaotic state of untamed nature is undesirable – natural existence is violent, harsh and unforgiving.

Terrorism, on the other hand, is an intentional, constructed effort by men, and should provoke outrage, anger and military response accordingly. It’s the difference between getting struck by lighting and being shot in an alley. Both are tragic; only one deserves justice.