It
didn’t take long for the shadow of world terror to be raised here. Speaking at the end of a BRAC hearing
(base closure plan) in Virginia, with a huge flag backdrop, Sen. Warner
(R-VA), senior GOP on the Armed Services Committee, said that “this morning we
awoke” to reminders of “why we must keep our military strong” and ready to
defend us.
No
doubt Sen. Warner and those applauding sincerely feel that a strong military
deters homeland attacks. I just wish they would put the same effort into
considering the offensive posture that has put us in more danger than
before. You won’t hear many in
the GOP mention the underlying causes why terrorist attacks increased since
9/11, or how we are expected to man those platoons and keep our vast Navy
afloat.
I
agree with you that a large attack here would backfire on extremists, who
don’t want America solidly behind GW Bush and the warhawks; however, my
earlier comments were directed at the romantic and fearful notion that our
only defense is further militarization of our
society.
The
downside to this of course is that the main subject at the G8 meetings has
already been deflected from addressing global poverty and environmental health
to terrorism. Maybe some of the other leaders can get through to Bush and help
him understand that there are other alternatives besides perpetual warfare,
but I suspect his initial reaction will be to dig in his heels to appear
‘resolute’ and exhibit ‘leadership’.
But my
guess is that over here, there will be many taking up the pen and in the
streets to protest the failure of the Bush Doctrine and demand a realistic
course, regardless of the bluster we shall hear in the short term.
Karen
-----Original
Message-----
From: Keith
Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 12:36
PM
To: Karen Watters
Cole
Cc:
futurework@scribe.uwaterloo.ca
Subject: RE: [Futurework] More thoughts
on the London attacks
Karen,.
At 10:03 07/07/2005
-0700, you wrote:
Keith, first, let me say for everyone
that we hope that fatalities and
injuries will be minimal, under the
circumstances. I now see the headlines
have updated the fatalities to 33
and injuries around 1000. The phrase
"worst attack in London since WW2" has
been used.
The
fatality figure has yet to be topped up with the number who died in the
tourist bus -- something the authorities refuse to talk about yet. Obviously,
it's a more sensitive figure than any others and, in any case, they may not be
sure how many have died yet -- body parts having been well scattered
around.
They have changed their minds here and
raised the terror alert to Orange on
mass transportation. I'm so glad
you mentioned the IRA experiences, because
one of my first random thoughts
was that it's "a good thing" this happened
in the UK, already tested for
their response to bombings on their home
territory. An attack like
this in the US would be seized as justification
for increased
militarization, bring out the crazies (many fully armed) and
abused for all
its worth politically (again).
For that
reason I don't think there'll be another organised Al Qaeda attack on the
American mainland. It would be counter-productive and swing popular opinion
firmly behind Bush again. There may be one or two individual events, of
course.
On that note, did I read that recent
elections in Spain reversed or turned
back the last post-Madrid bombing
elections?
Not sure
what you mean here. As far as I'm aware there have been no elections since the
one immediately after the Madrid bombing.
It isn't as clear to me as you think
that the attacks were aimed at sullying
Bush per se; it would seem that if
planned in advance they could easily have
been timed to discredit Blair for
being Bush's 'co-pilot' on the Iraq war
faked intelligence and military
offensive.
I'm not
adamant about it being mainly an anti-Bush event but I don't think Al Qaeda
have anywhere near the same animus against Blair. But, from their point of
view, the G8 Conference was a happy conjunction that could aim at both. The
more I think about the attack the more I think that it was very carefully
planned so that it would create as much economic damage to this country as
possible. It was no coincidence that it was a tourist bus that was blown up
and also that it was carried out at a particular time of the day (9.00am) when
it would catch commuters only. No children have been killed.
I think
the pressure on Blair from the international business community in London (as
well as the UK tourist industry and the London retail trade) to bring back
British troops from Iraq will be considerable -- though privately expressed --
from now onwards and is likely to be successful in the coming months.
I wonder how coincidental it is that I
found a headline today stating that
"there were nearly 3,200 terrorist
attacks worldwide last year, a federal
counterterrorism center said
yesterday, using a broader definition that
increased fivefold the number of
attacks the agency had been counting."
(numbers include Iraq) *
As
Blackmore was speculating earlier this morning, one has to wonder
what
reaction governments take towards immigration. The EU is launching and
the
US reinstituting one-way airplane flights to deport illegal aliens.**
We
like to think that we've made significant progress here against racism,
but
events like this force us to examine just how shallow or real those
changes
are in the face of fear, real and manufactured.
The
anti-immigration trend was already in full spate in the last two or three
months and the Labour government followed the Tory Party in taking this on
board because of the growing success of the British National Party. The idea
of a biometric identity card was actually introduced two months ago as an
anti-terrorist measure and the government almost succeeded in getting the
support of the Tories -- and of public opinion generally. But the opposition
to it grew surprisingly quickly and the Tories took advantage by turning
against it also. It was then that government ministers started talking about
the identity card being able to prevent welfare benefit fraud -- in other
words, immigrants -- which is what the public feel most strongly about.
In my readings and writings about the
separation of church and state, in
pointing my shame finger at religious
cultural wars, I keep thinking how
much goodwill it might generate if the
President attended church in
different faiths, perhaps quarterly (to allow
the Secret Service to
prepare). It could allay much of the suspicion in the
Muslim world that
American imperialism is really a jihad against Islam, and
it would
discourage or at least quiet the zealots of Christianity from the
language
that has been used to justify imperialism. It wouldn't deter
real
terrorists, of course, but advance the image of traditional American
values
promoting diversity and democracy.
I rather
think attempts like this are seen through -- whether they are sincere or not.
Unfortunately, if these were just photo
ops to counter sagging polls, the
message would be superficial at best. Mr.
Bush has a credibility problem
with too many of us that even his
reasonable, comforting statements are no
longer taken
seriously.
They say we are revealed by our reaction to events. Bush has
been running on
one track since 9/11 but the 'political capital' has been
running low. His
response to this and events unfolding in the next 6
weeks will tell us
whether or not the summer of 2005 will become what the
summer of 1968 was
for another earlier troubled Republican president.
It'll be interesting to
see how Blair/Brown respond, as
well.
I think
that secret talks between extremist Sunnis and the CIA/State Department have
been extensive for a long time (probably originally organised by Negroponte
when he was there) but the sticking point is the retention of long-term
American bases in Iraq even if the bulk of the troops go home -- which I think
Bush would gladly do at the drop of a hat otherwise. I see that Iran, since
the last election, is now raising this very pointedly. Another problem in Iraq
which is now rearing its head is that between the Basra Shias and the
Shia-dominated 'government' in Baghdad. Sunnis are now being persecuted in
Basra in the same way that they are in the Kurdish region and what is a
de facto independent Shiastan
(as the de facto Kurdistan)
might well become a de jure one
if Ayatollah Sistani can't hold the ring for much longer or dies.
Keith
