-----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>
