In 1941, the Japanese high command was considering launching a surprise attack on the United States. Their top commander, Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku, handed them a plan for a crippling strike on Pearl Harbor. But it came with an ominous warning: “In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States … I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success.”
Before Pearl Harbor, America had been willfully blind to the world burning. The anti-war arguments of the rabidly isolationist America First Committee (AFC) carried crushing support in public opinion polls. Two days after Pearl Harbor, American public backing for war had become nearly unanimous and AFC had “pledged their full support.”
Sixty years later, the post-9/11 rally around the flag showed that this American capacity to unify and mobilize in a crisis was undimmed. Former President George W. Bush had a bare majority of public backing, with Democrats still bitter from the 2000 election. Two weeks after the Twin Towers fell, Bush had soared to 90 percent approval, and a Congress evenly split between the parties would go on to overwhelmingly pass 48 vigorous legislative responses, while the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan would decimate the leadership of Al-Qaeda.
For the past century, that’s been the hidden power of this superpower: a strategic reserve of mutual trust and dormant energy which allowed us to black start from divided jumble to fearsome juggernaut.
This is not an infinitely renewable resource. It requires confidence that our leaders will wield the awesome power of our shared determination to act in the nation’s best interests. That confidence can be depleted.
As Bush began to exchange patriotic determination for the cheaper coin of political leverage—in order to push ahead with his attack on Iraq and quixotic partisan projects like privatizing Social Security—Democrats became justifiably suspicious that they had been played, their trauma used and then weaponized not against enemies, but against them. That left cracks in our shared vessel.
Over the past 10 years, President Donald Trump has shattered them wide open.
Trump has repeatedly shown that for him, there is no national interest. He cares only for ever more money, vengeance, and power. Like any junkie, he continually ups the dosage, provoking his opposition with greater outrage to stoke the division that fuels his political life and the petty dominance displays that apparently feed his soul.
In just the past month he has monetized the presidency to the tune of billions of dollars (crypto dinners, Qatari jets) handed out favors to those who pay him (corrupt pardons, more crypto operators) or fluff him (reality stars, corrupt right wing officials), sought retribution against opponents (law firms, New York Attorney General Leticia James, Democrats), and picked fights with everyone (NATO, China, Ukraine, Russia, Canada, Denmark, penguins). Our strategic trust reserve is now dry. There is no action that this government could take in a crisis that we could rally around.
And that is incredibly dangerous. We’ve seen why. Remember that Israel’s defense establishment warned that Benjamin Netanyahu‘s Trumpian moves in 2023 would make Israel a target for terrorist attack. They did. As former vice presidential candidate and Congressman Jack Kemp observed, weakness is provocative. What a provocation America now presents.
Consider this thought experiment (our enemies surely have): what would happen if there were even a moderate-sized terrorist attack in America tomorrow? Well, look at the reaction to last week’s protests in Los Angeles. Trump’s every move created only more anger and fear—likely intentionally. And that was a minor security situation.
So imagine how America would respond to a major act of terrorism. Could we take border security measures at face value after Trump’s multiple cries of “wolf?” In a biological attack, would anyone follow the guidance of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under the thumb of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who doesn’t believe that germs cause disease? If Trump launched a military response, would half of America see it as a self-serving “wag the dog” exercise?
Maybe we would reach deep into our DNA and rally. But far more likely is that America would melt into lawsuits, infighting, and paranoia.
The whole point of terrorism is to have an asymmetrical impact: for a small force to achieve a big effect. It is hard to imagine a time where such a vast potential effect has been on offer, where our country could be so easily broken to pieces. Our enemies undoubtedly see this, certainly can imagine what they could do now that our greatest deterrent asset has been sapped.
Abraham Lincoln once warned that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Trump is daily ripping out the beams.
Matt Robison is a writer, podcast host, and former congressional staffer.
The views in this article are the writer’s own.
The post The U.S. Has Never Been a Bigger Target for Terrorism. Trump Is Why appeared first on Newsweek.
