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: [email protected]
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
