11 August 2006
Terror and Terrorism
Obviously, the terror attack that never was of the last 48 hours has spooked a lot of people. The Big One, supposedly. I have no doubt that this was a serious threat, though I don't think any of the facts that have yet been made public prove that anything was imminent. That said, it seems like these guys were in the bag for months, pretty well surveillanced and tracked.
Unfortunately, this is another case of simply the threat of an attack creating terror among the populace. In that sense, even if Al Qaeda never successfully executes another terrorist attack inside the United States, they will be able to terrorize us for years to come. It is well known that the true target of Al Qaeda's strikes are Western economies: whether an attack is successful or not is of secondary importance. Yes, on one level these men are serial killers set out to spill American blood. But on another level, it is about perception: creating the perceived threat, making us live our lives in fear, shaking the global markets to their core and changing the ways we live our lives for the worse. This administration likes to talk about freedom; undoubtedly, we have lost significant amounts of individual freedom since 9/11, and there has been no element of "The War on Terror" that has caused us to regain any of that freedom. In fact, the political dynamic in our country right now is further inhibiting our democratic process: general dissatisfaction with Washington is at its highest level since 1994, and the party that controls the trifecta (White House, Congress, Supreme Court) has its back against the wall. In this Age of Terror, they have come to know only one way to respond: perpetuating the worst fears of the populace they govern.
> It should also be noted that this Al Qaeda attack plan was foiled by the British, who are doing a spectacular job of global intelligence gathering and who are certainly leading the way. Perhaps their days as empire upon which the sun never set are over, but the global community owes the British a hearty thank you for their steadfast maintenance of global security. They worked closely with the Pakistani government, who helped tremendously. Pakistan is, of course, led by a military dictator who came to power in a coup. If an open, free election were held in Pakistan today, Pervez Musharraf would not win, would not even be close. Most probably, Isalmic fundamentalists would. And to this point, Fred Kaplan raises an important question:
Do we prize our own freedom more than that of Pakistanis? I think the answer is most certainly, yes. But that creates a complex moral dilemma that has far-reaching consequences for our foreign policy, and further clouds our ability to see the world in black and white, as we are so apt to do.
It is also worth considering: how much longer can George Bush continue to expect Americans to not question the fact that, while the most grievous threat to our homeland since 9/11 was brewing among Britain's working-class mosques, we were busy pouring thousands of lives and billions of dollars into an Iraqi Civil War. I would hope also that more Americans begin to ask: Mr President, what is the difference between the secular dictator Saddam Hussein, who came to power with American support in a military coup, and who had a sworn-enemy in Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and Pervez Musharraf, who came to power with American support in a military coup, and who has a sworn-enemy in Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. I am sure the President has a nonsensical, fantasyland response to that question. But it is getting quite a bit harder for him to continue to evade the Reality that is now nipping at his heels.
¶ 11:53 AM
Unfortunately, this is another case of simply the threat of an attack creating terror among the populace. In that sense, even if Al Qaeda never successfully executes another terrorist attack inside the United States, they will be able to terrorize us for years to come. It is well known that the true target of Al Qaeda's strikes are Western economies: whether an attack is successful or not is of secondary importance. Yes, on one level these men are serial killers set out to spill American blood. But on another level, it is about perception: creating the perceived threat, making us live our lives in fear, shaking the global markets to their core and changing the ways we live our lives for the worse. This administration likes to talk about freedom; undoubtedly, we have lost significant amounts of individual freedom since 9/11, and there has been no element of "The War on Terror" that has caused us to regain any of that freedom. In fact, the political dynamic in our country right now is further inhibiting our democratic process: general dissatisfaction with Washington is at its highest level since 1994, and the party that controls the trifecta (White House, Congress, Supreme Court) has its back against the wall. In this Age of Terror, they have come to know only one way to respond: perpetuating the worst fears of the populace they govern.
> It should also be noted that this Al Qaeda attack plan was foiled by the British, who are doing a spectacular job of global intelligence gathering and who are certainly leading the way. Perhaps their days as empire upon which the sun never set are over, but the global community owes the British a hearty thank you for their steadfast maintenance of global security. They worked closely with the Pakistani government, who helped tremendously. Pakistan is, of course, led by a military dictator who came to power in a coup. If an open, free election were held in Pakistan today, Pervez Musharraf would not win, would not even be close. Most probably, Isalmic fundamentalists would. And to this point, Fred Kaplan raises an important question:
There's a broader lesson here, and it speaks to the Bush administration's present jam throughout the Middle East and in other danger zones. If the British had adopted the same policy toward dealing with Pakistan that Bush has adopted toward dealing with, say, Syria or Iran (namely, it's an evil regime, and we don't speak with evil regimes), then a lot of passenger planes would have shattered and spilled into the ocean, hundreds or thousands of people would have died, and the world would have suddenly been plunged into very scary territory.
It is time to ask: Which is the more "moral" course—to shun odious regimes as a matter of principle or to take unpleasant steps that might prevent mass terror?
Do we prize our own freedom more than that of Pakistanis? I think the answer is most certainly, yes. But that creates a complex moral dilemma that has far-reaching consequences for our foreign policy, and further clouds our ability to see the world in black and white, as we are so apt to do.
It is also worth considering: how much longer can George Bush continue to expect Americans to not question the fact that, while the most grievous threat to our homeland since 9/11 was brewing among Britain's working-class mosques, we were busy pouring thousands of lives and billions of dollars into an Iraqi Civil War. I would hope also that more Americans begin to ask: Mr President, what is the difference between the secular dictator Saddam Hussein, who came to power with American support in a military coup, and who had a sworn-enemy in Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and Pervez Musharraf, who came to power with American support in a military coup, and who has a sworn-enemy in Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. I am sure the President has a nonsensical, fantasyland response to that question. But it is getting quite a bit harder for him to continue to evade the Reality that is now nipping at his heels.
¶ 11:53 AM
