Tonight on 24: The terrorists win. We lose. The end.

The current New Yorker magazine features an article entitled "Whatever it Takes: The Politics of the Man Behind '24'", written by Jane Mayer. The man in question is Joel Surnow, the self-described "right-wing nut-job" who created the Fox-TV series (1), and the issue at hand is '24''s depiction of the War on Terror (and more specifically, the use of state-sanctioned torture to prosecute that war) and how that depiction may or may not be influencing American opinions about said "war."

'24', for those of you who've never seen it, is a deliriously over-the-top thriller that takes place in "real time" – i.e., a one-hour episode equals one hour in the characters' lives, with a full season adding up to one day. It follows the exploits of Jack Bauer, a field agent working for (or with, or against, as events dictate) the fictional Counter Terrorism Unit in Los Angeles. Each season starts with the discovery of a terrorist plot. They've become more elaborate with each passing year, starting with the first season's Manchurian Candidate-style conspiracy to murder a presidential candidate and moving on to season five's Byzantine plot in which the United States president arms Russian separatists with nerve gas in an attempt to secure oil interests in Central Asia on behalf of a shadowy cartel (later revealed to be under the control of Jack Bauer's father). Each episode moves Jack Bauer through various clues (which he usually uncovers through increasingly ingenuous forms of torture) and red herrings, ending at a moment of maximum jeopardy, as the clock clicks down and apocalypse seems all but unavoidable. The show is truly Wagnerian in the scope of its melodrama and violence, and as such it's got the irresistible appeal of a good, trashy soap opera.

Where this becomes a problem is when, as reported in the New Yorker article, people in positions of responsibility start taking this stuff seriously. The article gives several examples of this, including a visit to the set of '24' by Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point. General Finnegan had arranged the visit in an attempt to persuade the producers of '24' to stop portraying torture as an acceptable and productive method of interrogation. The problem, the article explains, is that "…it had become increasingly hard to convince some cadets that America had to respect the rule of law and human rights, when terrorists did not. One reason for the growing resistance, he suggested, was misconceptions spread by '24', which was exceptionally popular with his students." The article goes on to list the many members of the Bush administration who are avowed fans of the show, culminating with this truly mind-boggling quote from Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff: "Frankly, it [the show] reflects real life."

That's almost correct. What '24' does reflect, I think, is the reality that we as a nation believe exists. At this point, the disconnect between what's actually happened to us in the last few years and our collective reaction to it is so severe that it qualifies as a near-psychotic break. '24' offers a window onto the world as distorted by this deeply paranoid and delusional national psyche. Consider:

In the six years since the show's premiere (12 years in show time, adding up the eighteen-month to four-year gaps between "days"), terrorist actions in the United States have included, in '24'-world: at least one bus bombing; one train bombing; the bombing of a Federal anti-terrorism agency's Los Angeles field office; the mass murder of multiple employees of that office via a deadly nerve gas; the execution (under terrorist demands) of a high-ranking official of the same office; the takeover of an airport in Ontario, CA (presumably the parking situation at LAX rendered the preferred target unworkable); the theft of an Air Force stealth fighter; the downing of Air Force One with said stealth fighter; the attempted assassination of one presidential candidate; the attempted assassination of two sitting presidents; the successful assassination of one sitting president and one former president; the release of a deadly nerve gas in a suburban shopping mall; the release of a deadly biological weapon in a Los Angeles hotel; the sabotage and near meltdown of a half-dozen nuclear reactors; the launching of one nuclear missile towards Los Angeles, CA (casualties: zero, but it was touch-and-go for a minute there); the detonation of one nuclear bomb over the Nevada desert (casualties: one, but he was in bad shape anyway); the detonation of another nuclear bomb in Valencia, CA (casualties: 12,000 and counting, plus Six Flags Magic Mountain).

Meanwhile, in the real world, terrorist actions in the United States have included: the 9/11 attacks; the distribution of anthrax through the US postal service (possibly unrelated to Islamic terrorists); one attempted shoe bombing; one alleged "dirty bomb" plot (since discredited); one plot to attack the Sears Tower (foiled by a Federal agent who convinced the Florida-based terrorist masterminds to postpone their plans in favor of first purchasing uniforms and combat boots); one plot to collapse the Holland Tunnel between New York and New Jersey (conceived in Germany by a group of terrorist masterminds who had not yet actually seen the tunnel, nor figured out how they would go about securing the materials for and constructing the bombs, nor even worked out how they would enter the United States sans passports).

In short, in the five and a half years since the attacks of September 11, 2001, there has been not one single terrorist attack in the United States. Which, of course, leads many to say, "see, all those heightened security measures, those new exemptions to Constitutional protections – they're working." Maybe. You can't disprove it. But isn't it at least possible that the threat is nowhere near as dire as we've convinced ourselves it is?

I mean, if draconian legal and military measures guarantee safety, how do you explain the continuing suicide bombings in Israel? The Israelis certainly haven't been using kid gloves. Nor did the British when fighting the IRA in the 80s. Terrorism is an extremely effective tactic because, short of a total, society-wide lockdown, there's no way to stop it. No way.

You want to know what makes me feel safe? The fact that no one's bombed the New Jersey PATH trains or the New York subway system. Because it would be so, so easy. I travel one or both of these train systems five times a week with a heavy bag slung over my shoulder, nary a Port Authority or NYPD officer in sight. If that bag contained a bomb, setting it off at rush hour would be the simplest thing in the world. You wouldn't even have to be a suicide bomber. Just switch on a time-delayed trigger, jump off the train, and it goes off before anyone has a chance to alert the proper authorities. And my point is, the fact that no one's done this – in five and a half years of our War on Terror – says to me that there can't possibly be that many of these people in the US.

Even the 9/11 attacks have taken on mythic proportions that are totally out of synch with reality. The plot is seen as so massive, so complex, so evilly brilliant that only a '24'-level terrorist genius or – in the other popular delusion – the US government could possibly have pulled it off. Which is so exactly wrong it's comical. The most striking thing about the 9/11 attacks is their – for lack of a better word – brilliant simplicity. They were an exercise in resourcefulness. I mean, consider that these men didn't even have to break any laws until the moment they took over the planes:

Entering the US on a student or visitor's visa: legal. Attending flight school: legal. Studying building schematics, researching structural weaknesses, determining the heat generated by burning jet fuel: legal. Purchasing airline tickets: legal. Carrying box cutters onto an airplane: legal before 9/11. Empowering nineteen dedicated fanatics to dictate the agenda of the world's sole superpower for more than half a decade: priceless. It's the most American story of all: the lone Idealist taking on the System – and winning. Anyone remember Knight Rider? "One man can make a difference."

Or at least, nineteen men can.

So then, the argument goes, if these men were able to pull off such a destructive attack without any overt lawbreaking, doesn't that just point out the necessity of new laws to deal with the threat? No. As has been pointed out ad nauseum over the past five years, various elements of this plot were detected by local and Federal law enforcement officials. Our intelligence and law enforcement agencies did have the information to uncover the one crime that was being committed before the attacks: conspiracy. Hell, a number of the hijackers were on terrorist watch-lists the morning they boarded those planes. The fact that it was a complex and obscure puzzle to piece together does not change the fact that our security and intelligence capabilities pre-9/11 were sufficient to prevent the attacks. We simply lacked the dedication and focus to implement them. The 9/ll hijackers, faced with (given their lack of resources) an even more complicated puzzle, were not so lacking. They win, we lose. Simple as that.

So listen up, America, because I'm calling you out. Rational argument is clearly useless, so I'm going to appeal to good old-fashioned American machismo: are you going to let nineteen guys from some crappy, backwards-ass country in the middle of the desert tell you how to feel? Are you such a pussy that one punch in the face is going to send you running behind the couch and begging daddy to protect you, "whatever it takes"? Is that how America rolls?

(1) And also the creator of Fox News' horrifically unfunny new comedy show, "The Half-Hour News Hour," created as a right-wing counterpart to "The Daily Show."