-----Original
Message-----
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Karen Watters
Cole
Sent:
Thursday, July 7, 2005 4:20 PM
To:
[email protected]
Subject: RE: [Futurework] More
thoughts on the London attacks
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
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
