"Put simply this was intended to be mass murder on an unimaginable scale." - Scotland Yard's statement on the alleged bomb plot in Britain
Whatever the substance of the current bomb-plot allegations turns out to be, this is a reminder that there will be a "next attack" for the United States. We can be sure, absolutely confident, that the Republicans will immediately and shamelessly try to milk it for all the partisan advantage it's worth. I've been thinking about ways in which the public and the Democrats might respond in more constructive ways, beyond the immediately need to cope with a specific emergency situation.
One is to look for the facts. I almost said, "obviously", but that was a bit of anachronistic thinking, dating back to the days before FOX News and postmodern Republican news manufacture.
Larry Johnson, who got stuck on a delayed flight in Europe, writes:
I'm sitting in Europe, scheduled to take British Air back to the states on Friday, and I'm watching British Authorities meltdown in the face of an alleged terrorist plot. Rule of thumb--initial, panicked reports are usually unreliable. ...
Johnson was also unimpressed with the initial reaction of the British authorities:
In the back of my mind I worry that this threat might be trumped up in order to divert attention from the disastrous US and British policy (or lack of policy) in Lebanon. More likely, we have an informant in the UK that identified a potential plot that was in the dreaming stage but had not progressed to actual implementation. Rather than act like security professionals, the Brits are acting like panicked nannies.
This comes just two months after the last terrorism scare, the raid at Forest Gate on June 2, when Abul Koyair and Mohammed Abdul Kahar's house was raided in an operation involving over 200 officers. It was suspected that some kind of chemical or biological bomb was being held or developed there. Mohammed was shot during the commotion, their house was clinically taken apart bit by bit, but no charges were brought.
The fallout was enormous. An already tense and fragile Muslim community saw the incident as further evidence of their victimisation at the hands of the police, security service and government - precisely the institutions that are supposed to be there to protect the public. Muslims in Leicester that I spoke to at the time felt worried that they might come under suspicion at any time, with or without any evidence.
In the light of this morning's news, some would have little patience for these concerns. Many would argue that we must do whatever it takes to tackle what appears to be a sustained, determined and potentially deadly force. As [home secretary] John Reid said yesterday at Demos, we must face up to the fact that we may have to give up some of our freedoms in order to prevent the kind of carnage that a plot like that could have unfurled.
But good relations between the police and Muslim communities are not a pleasant side-show in the fight against terrorism. Initial indications suggest that some or all of those arrested today - like the 7/7 bombers - are British nationals, living within and among ordinary, law abiding Muslim communities. We cannot hope to be successful in what could be a long and drawn out campaign unless those communities trust the police and have confidence in their ability to work alongside them in precisely the type of partnership that John Reid has signalled he wants.
One of my own guidelines is, never forget that the Cheney-Bush administration used the public anger and outrage over the 9/11 attacks to start a completely unnecessary war of choice in Iraq. They are certainly willing do it again.
Never forget also that the Cheney-Bush administration used public fear of terrorism not only as a crass partisan political tool but also as an opportunity and excuse to implement Dick Cheney's Unilateral Executive theory of Presidential power that assumes that the (Republican) President has the authority to override any law or Constitutional provision he chooses with no external review, so long as he claims it's for "national security". They are certainly willing do it again.
There are real terrorist threats out there. Some of them are Muslim extremists of various sorts, others are rightwing fanatics and cultists of various kinds. Yes, animal-rights zealots and some extremist ecological groups commit terrorist acts, though I don't recall any mass-murder sorts of terrorism from those. The US has had other leftwing terrorists in the past, though none operating right now come to mind.
I see some similiar thoughts have occurred to Josh Marshall:
President Bush just said the events in London are "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists."
Also a pretty stark reminder that President Bush's War on Terror, the way he's chosen to fight it, is at best irrelevant to combatting this sort of danger. These are homegrown Brits apparently trying to blow up planes over the Atlantic. Good thing we've got a 150,000 or so troops in Iraq to take the fight to them.
At the core of the administrations’ war on terror are two strategies, neither of which appear to be particularly relevant in this particular case. One is the notion that we can best win the war on the offense — that should “fight them over there so we don’t need to fight them over here.” That’s what the Iraq War, and Bush’s support for Israel’s fight against Hizbollah, are all about.
But as far as we know, the plotters in the UK were homegrown — all were British citizens. Taking the offense in this war — by which the administration means using military force — is worse then useless. For who are you going to bomb? Safe houses in High Wycombe or Birmingham? ...
This apparent success also undermines the second core element of the administration’s war on terror — the notion that effective counter-terrorism action requires ignoring established procedures and the rule of law. As the Brits have shown, there is no need to subvert the law, or civic liberties, to conduct effective counter-terrorism operations. And when the UK government found that some laws (e.g., on the duration of detention) might interfere with effective investigations and actions, it has sought to change the law through established parliamentary procedures rather than to ignore it as Bush has been wont to do.
John Reid's task, as he comes up on airport television screens, is to reassure the milling masses of grounded holidaymakers that the state has a grip of the situation. This is as much about tone and body language as about the precise words he uses. ...
My advice to him now would be to rein back his natural - occasionally splendid - aggression and use the quiet power of his voice to convey a solid competence. And I would advise him against rhetoric. Make no sweeping statements about the war on terrorism, arcs of extremism, axes of evil. This is what terrorists want to hear. It gives them status as ideological warriors, rather than squalid would-be killers.
Leave that kind of talk to columnists. Use understatement and let the public draw its own conclusions. Don't labour the point that this plot - which has the feel of something genuine and very serious - underlines what you've been saying about the nature of the threat. It does. Let others say that for you.
The British public needs a sense that its political leaders, speaking for operational intelligence and police officers, are applying calm and wise judgement. ....
The purpose of terrorism is literally to terrify the public, so that fear spreads beyond the immediate victims, or intended victims, to a point at which the population cannot go about daily life without dread. At that point, the terrorist would have created a general sense that events are slipping beyond the state's control, to the extent that it can no longer provide the security necessary for routine life to go on without crippling disruption.
That approach is the exact opposite of the Cheney-Bush administration's approach.
That's not to say the British government will necessarily follow such advice. See the Scotland Yard statement quoted at the start of this post: "Put simply this was intended to be mass murder on an unimaginable scale." I doubt that will be regarded as "understatement". Maybe Scotland Yard hired a Republican consultant to write their press releases.
