The Same Old Canard, Again

As Bush was busy making nice to the nations of Europe he did slip in a little dig, blaming them for not supporting him in his decision to attack Iraq.

The excuse, Europe didn't get 'it', 9-11 changed everything. But, what did 9-11 change that Europe didn't understand?


Is it the terrorism that changed everything? The trouble with that argument is terrorism is not new. Terrorist have been attacking in Europe far more than they have in the US. Terror as a weapon is as old as human conflict, and has been a tool of war as long as there have been wars. The leaders in Europe know about, and have been fighting against terror at least as long as we have.

Maybe it is the type of terror that they just did not understand. This position also has huge holes in it. Planes have been hijacked since at least 1948, Hijackings are not new, and there have been a number of terrorist hijacking all around the world, they have to be aware of this fact. Could it be the idea of using a hijacked plane to attack a building that changed everything? This isn't a new or original concept, it was even used as a plot device in a Tom Clancey novel.

Was it an attack on American interest, or American soil that caused the change?Attacks that kill Americans, or on American soil are old news, have we forgotten Pan Am 103 or the Oklahoma City bombing?

Nothing about 9-11 was new, and should not have surprised anyone. If Bush had listened to his CIA briefers, focused on his presidential briefings or listened to the previous administrations warnings, there would be no reason to be shocked by the world trade center attacks. Only someone who didn't think it could happen could be so shocked by an event to have it 'change everything'.


On September 11, The only thing that Bush was sure that needed changing was his soiled underclothing.

Maybe the guilt Bush felt for having ignored the warnings, mixing the stark fear that the incident produced in him, led him to feel that everything has changed. He has developed irrational policies with unclear goals in an effort to make the world as safe as an infants crib. The trouble is, nothing, not even an infants crib can be made perfectly safe.

Over twenty years ago, as an undergrad, we talked about the risks of international and domestic terrorism. How it was difficult to have an open society and still stop some events. How perfect security could not be achieved. We looked at various means of attacking society, and considered some horrific events. One thing was clear, terrorism is just martial arts played on a grander scale. The goal of an attack is not the direct harm caused to the target by the attack, they want to use the energy of our response to get us to harm ourselfs.

For those who knew this could happen, the reaction was much more rational. Destroy those who attacked us. Use the full force of our military and diplomatic might to kill, capture, imprison and marginalized anyone involved.

Then step back, evaluate why the terrorist evolved in the first place. Find ways to erode the system that supported the development of those who would engage in or support terror. Find peaceful ways to counter those calling for resistance, and invest in intelligence so that you are aware when new threats start to develop. The harsh truth about radicals is you can never prevent them from existing, but with wise programs, you can prevent them from developing a critical mass of support to do real harm to our nation.

Or

You can be scared to the point that, after you change into clean drawers, you lash out in every direction, and as a result contribute to the growth of the roots of the very terrorism movement you are trying to destroy.

Then you can blame others, for not understanding that 9-11 changed everything.



Tags
Terrorism