Recently, in the United States we marked the fifth anniversary of the September 11^th attack. Throughout the country, the day was marked with vigils, memorials and speeches. In particular, President Bush stood at ground zero in New York and gave a speech in honor of those who died on that day.

I have not listened or read a full transcript of the speech but as I sat watching the NHK bilingual news coverage I noted that Mr. Bush asked a presumably rhetorical question about if we were safer now than before 9-11. The thing that struck me was: How do you measure something like safety? Presumably they are pointing to the ideas that there have been no terrorist attacks on the United States as supporting that we are safer now.

I am not sure what this proves really, just because I have never been hit by lightning does not mean I am going to run through a thunderstorm with a flagpole. What the president and his speechwriters are confusing is something that is qualitative - safety - and something that is quantitative - the number of terrorist attacks on the US. I do think that in some ways Mr. Bush is correct, and that the United States is more vigilant now than before, though our methods of fighting terrorism belie a fundamental difference from our European allies. Witness the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq versus the arrests of terrorist cells in Spain and Britain, for example.

The essential feeling of safety versus danger is something that is very individualized and personal. While I may have no problem walking through Kabukicho a notoriously swinging part of Tokyo, many Japanese fear to walk there at night because they consider it dangerous. So while our politicians may feel that we are safer, it does not necessarily feel that way to me. It is hard to pin down exactly what the root cause for terrorism is. Further, it would seem that creating two new breeding grounds for terrorists in Asia is not really a good idea, when you cannot even stop them in your own country like Timothy McVeigh or from close allies like Saudi Arabia.

Safety is like liberty to me, you can define it easier negatively. That is, until you do not have it you will not understand what it means to you. The situation in Iraq is much like the situation that happened in Vietnam during the Tet offensive. From a Viet Cong standpoint, the Tet offensive in 1968 was a military disaster, and severely crippled the war in the south, especially around Saigon. What it meant to the United States was very different. It was, without a doubt, a public disaster, and caused President Johnson to withdraw his nomination for a second term because he could not get past the public outcry over the war, and the very important perception that it was a hopeless situation.

The essential lesson for the Bush administration is that even if we are winning in Iraq, we have already lost the more important battle for hearts and minds at home. I cannot help but think that it is in large part due to the language that the administration has used to support itself throughout both terms. It sickens me to think that if they repeat we are safer, we are freer; we are winning the war enough that it will make it so. I can only hope that that kind of dishonesty is exposed as often as possible.