Ignoring Things

I don't watch the Beinart/Goldberg diavlogs because they appear to involve the premise that Jonah Goldberg is a person you should debate seriously, but I found myself reading a James Kirchick post that begins "Given Peter and Jonah's discussion today about whether or not liberals are ignoring the attempted bombings in London and Glasgow last week, the first thing that came to mind when I heard about the failed bombs was a warning delivered by the British gay rights activist Peter Tatchell almost two years ago to the day."

I'm pretty sure I haven't been "ignoring" the bomb attempt, but I've certainly said less about it than, say, the NBA draft. That said, I find there to be two curious presumptions built into the question. One is that "you're paying less attention than you should to failed bombings in a foreign country!" is framed as some kind of cutting accusation. Second, is that it's taken as a given that hyping-up the threat of terrorism is something conservatives will want to do whereas downplaying it is something liberals will want to do.

It's interesting because on another level if a liberal wants to make the case that Bush has been a horrible president implementing horrible policies, probably the most natural response is to say "look, some of what you say is true, but at the end of the day there haven't been any more attacks since 9/11." At that point, it falls to the liberal to point to all this international data indicating a substantial surge in Islamist violence during the Bush years as evidence of the administration's failures.

Comments

Second, is that it's taken as a given that hyping-up the threat of terrorism is something conservatives will want to do whereas downplaying it is something liberals will want to do.

How about ignoring the political repercussions and admitting the truth that terrorism poses no threat whatsoever to the average American-- or, more accurately, a threat on line with being mauled by a bear or drowning in a bath tub.

Posted by Freddie | July 4, 2007 10:53 AM

Posted by Freddie | July 4, 2007 10:53 AM:"How about ignoring the political repercussions and admitting the truth that terrorism poses no threat whatsoever to the average American-- or, more accurately, a threat on line with being mauled by a bear or drowning in a bath tub."

Terrorism is not like road accidents. There is no reason to think there is some fixed upper number, even at any given time. The number of terrorist attacks could, no doubt, expand more or less indefinitely - or at least until the pool of angry young Muslim men dries up. So when do you think we all ought to get worried? When the US suffers as much as Israel? Terrorism is not like drowning in a bath tub. It is like Bird Flu. Sure it has killed very few so far, but the potential is enormous. So the Bush Junior administration has over-reacted. That does not change the fact that this is not like angry bears.

Nor, with all due respect, is it necessarily the case that the surge in terrorism is a result of the Bush administration's failures (although it is likely). We don't know how bad it would have been had the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq not taken place.

However as bad as Iraq is, there are small signs of hope in the War on Terror all the time - the disgust of Muslims at the behavior of the Jihadis is an unsung story. Even the British MCB has called for British Muslims to co-operate with the police against terrorists which given they are basically a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood if not actually al-Qaeda is highly interesting.

Posted by HeiGou | July 4, 2007 11:14 AM

Could terrorism expand indefinitely? I suppose. So could bath tub drownings. But if I suggested that we should fear a sudden enormous rise in the rate of bath tub drownings, surely the onus is on me to produce evidence that suggests why I feel that is the case. And that evidence would have to be pretty extraordinary to counteract the many years of a tiny rate of bath tub-related deaths.

Posted by Freddie | July 4, 2007 11:21 AM

Posted by Freddie | July 4, 2007 11:21 AM:"Could terrorism expand indefinitely? I suppose. So could bath tub drownings. But if I suggested that we should fear a sudden enormous rise in the rate of bath tub drownings, surely the onus is on me to produce evidence that suggests why I feel that is the case. And that evidence would have to be pretty extraordinary to counteract the many years of a tiny rate of bath tub-related deaths."

I don't see that bath tub drownings could. We can model those - I assume the two main factors are the number of babies and the number of old people. One is going down, the other up. A model could be made. Israel proves that even if suicide bombings do not increase indefinitely, they increase very quickly to very high levels. There is no reason to think that Islamic terrorism is any different in America.

So my question remains - how many dead people is enough before some sort of action is taken?

Posted by HeiGou | July 4, 2007 11:43 AM

Let's see. Difference between Israel and the U.S. Let's think hard and maybe we could come up with some. I know! Could it be that - the U.S. has not, recently, settled into territory it has conquered and tried to remove, wall off, and settle Americans among the disgruntled population therefrom? How about the idea that the last time the U.S. was at war with its neighbors was 1845?
Not, of course, counting last year, when we had to bomb the hell out of Canada and destroy their highway infrastructure.

But what the hell, besides that, they are just alike.

Posted by roger | July 4, 2007 11:49 AM

So my question remains - how many dead people is enough before some sort of action is taken?

Some sort of action is being taken. Specifically, suspending habeas corpus, building secret prisons, torturing prisoners, warrantless wiretapping, etc. Now how many dead people would it require for me to agree with these measures? Probably no amount would justify those infringements for me; I dig the Constitution that way. But if I could be convinced, it would take a lot more than zero people in five and a half years.

Posted by Freddie | July 4, 2007 11:50 AM

if I suggested that we should fear a sudden enormous rise in the rate of bath tub drownings, surely the onus is on me to produce evidence that suggests why I feel that is the case.

Shut up. If Bush turns his attention to stopping bathtub drownings we'll end up with 50,000 a year. I don't know how he'll manage it, but he will.

Posted by calling all toasters | July 4, 2007 12:03 PM

The real issue with terrorism is making sure that terrorists don't get hold of a nuclear bomb. I seem to remember someone giving a very articulate account of that on national TV on September 30, 2004. Since he had such good ideas, the government presumably adopted them.

Posted by Matt Weiner | July 4, 2007 12:05 PM

Posted by roger | July 4, 2007 11:49 AM:"Let's see. Difference between Israel and the U.S. Let's think hard and maybe we could come up with some. I know! Could it be that - the U.S. has not, recently, settled into territory it has conquered and tried to remove, wall off, and settle Americans among the disgruntled population therefrom?"

Could be. However none of these claims is true for Israel, or at least few of them. Nor is there any reason to think they cause suicide bombings. After all Britain has also suffered suicide bombs and they have not recently settled in a territory they conquered etc etc.

Posted by roger | July 4, 2007 11:49 AM:"How about the idea that the last time the U.S. was at war with its neighbors was 1845?"

For some definitions of War. US soldiers crossed the Mexican border without asking Mexico in 1914 or so. Funny we don't get any Mexican suicide bombers taking revenge for Texas.

Posted by roger | July 4, 2007 11:49 AM:"But what the hell, besides that, they are just alike."

The alikeness, in fact your whole post, is irrelevant. No one is claiming they are. Just that Israel shows how serious suicide bombing can get. There is still no reason to think Al-Qaeda would not follow if it could.

Posted by Freddie | July 4, 2007 11:50 AM:"Some sort of action is being taken. Specifically, suspending habeas corpus, building secret prisons, torturing prisoners, warrantless wiretapping, etc."

Although over the strenuous objections of every one here who object not merely to these offensive actions but it would seem any action whatsoever.

These actions are stupid but they are a response to the problem. I remember 9-11 when everyone was savaged for not connecting the dots and not doing enough. Now it seems people are back to wanting to do nothing. The fact that *these* actions are dumb does not mean that *some* actions are not necessary. Quite what is another question.

Posted by Matt Weiner | July 4, 2007 12:05 PM:"The real issue with terrorism is making sure that terrorists don't get hold of a nuclear bomb."

Which is another very good reason why the "let some of them through because they don't amount to much" argument will fail. Assuming that they will get nuclear waste in the end.

Posted by HeiGou | July 4, 2007 12:27 PM

Of course, you've utterly failed to account for the fact that no one--not one person-- in America has been killed by terrorism in five and a half years, nor provided evidence that the number of attacks is going to suddenly explode to the point where terrorism becomes a significant threat to the average American.

You could have an attack the size of 9/11 every year and the chance that an individual American would be killed by terrorism would remain incredibly low. And of course, we've seen nothing like that.

Posted by Freddie | July 4, 2007 12:41 PM

Posted by Freddie | July 4, 2007 12:41 PM :"Of course, you've utterly failed to account for the fact that no one--not one person-- in America has been killed by terrorism in five and a half years, nor provided evidence that the number of attacks is going to suddenly explode to the point where terrorism becomes a significant threat to the average American."

I think I have - or at least I have suggested that the War on Terror, as incompetent as it is, has contributed to that very low death toll. It is not as if there have not been efforts at killing Americans. It is not as if people have not been convicted and put in jail. Now the problem is Lisa Simpson's Tiger Repelling Rocks of course.

As for evidence, I don't think the evidence is strong that it would suddenly explode. Or even that it is likely to increase to Israeli levels. But the possibility is a good one that it would. It certainly would if al-Qaeda et al had their way. So again the question is what to do in the face of this. Most Americans want something done to prevent another 9-11 much less one every other week. The Bush administration is doing something and so they got re-elected. If not this, what?

Posted by Freddie | July 4, 2007 12:41 PM:"You could have an attack the size of 9/11 every year and the chance that an individual American would be killed by terrorism would remain incredibly low. And of course, we've seen nothing like that."

Sure - slightly more than 1 in 100,000 people would die. Every year. It would be a lot less than the road toll. But the public is funny about these things. They are coming around to thinking Iraq is too costly. Vietnam in total amounted to about the annual road toll for America but that was too much. Simply pointing out the math is not an answer.

Posted by HeiGou | July 4, 2007 1:00 PM

HeiGou - "Now it seems people are back to wanting to do nothing."

That is utter bullshit. There is no one of any significance in American politics that wants to do "nothing" about the real threat of terrorism. That people do not like or support the policies of the Bush Administration does not mean they want to do "nothing". That's the sort of childish thinking that has rendered our political discourse almost completely useless.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 4, 2007 1:19 PM

"I don't watch the Beinart/Goldberg diavlogs because they appear to involve the premise that Jonah Goldberg is a person you should debate seriously,"

Indeed, and I would say the same for Peter Beinart, yet another public intellectual undeserving of such a staus. Flowery claptrap and starry-eyed idealism are bad enough when they are not getting us into losing wars.

Posted by Shochu John | July 4, 2007 1:30 PM

Now it seems people are back to wanting to do nothing.

Given that you've just make an incredibly dishonest, rather insulting statement, you really need to provide some justification for why any statement of yours should ever be regarded as anything other than a load of bullshit.

I mean, other than the fact that you adhere to a rather ignorant conservative ideology.

Posted by Constantine | July 4, 2007 1:33 PM

Simply pointing out the math is not an answer.

That's true. But pointing out the math does help us to understand the nature of the threat. Terrorism is a problem that must be confronted by the United States. But for God's sakes, if we are going to confront it successfully, we have to do so rationally. And that requires that we don't inflate the threat in ways that utterly distort our understanding of the issue and handicap our ability to respond effectively.

And, as others have pointed out, no one is advocating doing nothing. If you can provide a link that shows a significant figure in either American politics or the American media who advocates doing nothing, I'd like to see it. Otherwise that's a distortion of Sean Hannity proportions.

Posted by Freddie | July 4, 2007 1:58 PM

Re: Could it be that - the U.S. has not, recently, settled into territory it has conquered and tried to remove, wall off, and settle Americans among the disgruntled population therefrom?

Let's not forget that we did exactly this to our Native Americans, indeed they were treated far worse than anything the Palestinians have suffered.

Posted by JonF | July 4, 2007 2:19 PM

Let's see, June news stories:"Terrorist crashes car into building; tries to set it on fire"

How much coverage? Oh, it's a women's health clinic that also does abortions, so the correct answer is 'none'

Posted by MikeN | July 4, 2007 2:28 PM

Heigou, this is wrong: "For some definitions of War. US soldiers crossed the Mexican border without asking Mexico in 1914 or so. Funny we don't get any Mexican suicide bombers taking revenge for Texas."
a. of course we asked to go across the Mexican border - or demanded to go across the Mexican border - because Pancho Villa raided Columbus, New Mexico in 1916.
b. American troops, once across, had the audacity to challenge Mexico's governmental army, instead of Pancho Villa's guerilla band and had their ass handed to them at the battle of Carrizal, after which the Americans withdrew.

As for the rest of your comments, the UK's problem with bombing has mainly been with Irish bombing - ah, because it is on the border and directly connects to the UK! They have had, and probably will have, more incidents of bombing by Islamicist groups, because -well, the Tony Blair lied the UK into a foul war in Iraq. As for saying things could get as bad as they are in Israel, again, that is an analogy that makes no sense at all, nothing in your comment defends it, and we can dismiss it as rhetorical froth. In the UK, things could get as bad as they have gotten before, in the UK, in the eighties. Things calmed down when the UK negotiated a settlement in Northern Ireland.

Your remarks aren't wholly fantastic, however. Al qaeda being given a pass when the Pentagon decided to let Osama bin Laden escape at Tora bora (evidently, so that they would have a terrorist on tap to concentrate and frighten the American mind in preparing for the upcoming dirty campaign to invade Iraq) was obviously a terrible decision, compounded by the unsuccessful use of tribute paid by the U.S. to Pakistan each year, which has not kept Pakistan from supporting, supplying, and doing logistics work for the Taliban and has not kept the al qaeda leadership in a sort of national park of scariness, to be referenced by the GOP every four years. There's no doubt that Bush's decision to end the war on the only terrorists that attacked us in the spring of 2002 lead directly to 7/7 in the UK. The criminal neglect of the White House should be brought up more often by the liberal commentariat.

Posted by roger | July 4, 2007 2:53 PM

Remember, as well, the anthrax attacks occurred after 9/11 on American soil. Conservatives like to pretend they never happened.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 4, 2007 3:09 PM

What about the link between nationalized health care and the terrorist attacks in Britain? How many of these terrorists were Muslim physicians -- recruited, presumably, because below-market physician salaries failed to attract enough bright native born Britons to the field.

Posted by Harry | July 4, 2007 4:01 PM

Wow, Harry--I think you're teetering on coming up with a racist conservative meta-conspiracy that will connect every liberal idea in existence. Terrorism, universal health care, multiple-choice society (i.e., not locked into one race or culture)...do gay people factor into this, as well?

Posted by Nobody Important | July 4, 2007 8:20 PM

recruited, presumably, below-market physician salaries failed to attract enough bright native born Britons to the field.

Ah, right. What 'market' is this? The one that makes it pretty damn cheap for British medical students to train? What a silly man you are.

Anyway, what's the continued story? Perhaps the fact that one of those arrested was an Iraqi. Gotta love that 'flypaper'. And if Jonah wants more to be said, he should reflect that a visit to the Oxford Union doesn't make him an expert commentator on the UK.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 5, 2007 1:18 AM

"Remember, as well, the anthrax attacks occurred after 9/11 on American soil. Conservatives like to pretend they never happened."

You are missing the real point here. I don't know any conservatives who denied or minimized the anthrax attacks. Fox News, for example, was wall-to-wall with them when they happened.

Part of the reason the anthrax story had legs was that the leading suspect was a non-Muslim. There have been other terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11 -- the shooting at the Seattle Jewish center, the shooting at the LAX El Al counter, the D.C. sniper shootings, the shootings at the Utah shopping mall, etc. (Investor's Business Daily offers a more comprehensive list of incidents) -- all committed by politically motivated Muslims. The mainstream media has studiously refused to characterize any of these incidents as terrorism.

Posted by Juan | July 5, 2007 4:13 AM

Posted by MBunge | July 4, 2007 1:19 PM:"That is utter bullshit. There is no one of any significance in American politics that wants to do "nothing" about the real threat of terrorism. That people do not like or support the policies of the Bush Administration does not mean they want to do "nothing". That's the sort of childish thinking that has rendered our political discourse almost completely useless."

Well if it will make you happier, I am willing to replace "nothing" with "meaningless gestures". Besides, I kind of think that at my end of the spectrum Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan really do want to do nothing. However my question remains - if not this, what? Apart from abuse I don't get much in reply to that strongly suggesting that nothing is what is intended.

Posted by Constantine | July 4, 2007 1:33 PM:"Given that you've just make an incredibly dishonest, rather insulting statement, you really need to provide some justification for why any statement of yours should ever be regarded as anything other than a load of bullshit."

What is dishonest about it? See my comment above.

Posted by Freddie | July 4, 2007 1:58 PM:"But pointing out the math does help us to understand the nature of the threat."

Only if we have some idea of the trend. It is not enough to say that it is not a problem now because it may not always be.

Posted by Freddie | July 4, 2007 1:58 PM:"But for God's sakes, if we are going to confront it successfully, we have to do so rationally."

I agree totally. And the Bush administration is not doing so, but then neither is anyone else.

Posted by roger | July 4, 2007 2:53 PM:"a. of course we asked to go across the Mexican border - or demanded to go across the Mexican border - because Pancho Villa raided Columbus, New Mexico in 1916."

I don't really see how that makes me wrong. I can see why that demand to cross was not entirely accurate, but I think that is a bit of a quibble don't you?

Posted by roger | July 4, 2007 2:53 PM:"b. American troops, once across, had the audacity to challenge Mexico's governmental army, instead of Pancho Villa's guerilla band and had their ass handed to them at the battle of Carrizal, after which the Americans withdrew."

Which is interesting but kind of proves my point.

Posted by roger | July 4, 2007 2:53 PM:"As for the rest of your comments, the UK's problem with bombing has mainly been with Irish bombing - ah, because it is on the border and directly connects to the UK!"

Sorry but how many bombers have come from the Republic as you seem to be implying?

Posted by roger | July 4, 2007 2:53 PM :"They have had, and probably will have, more incidents of bombing by Islamicist groups, because -well, the Tony Blair lied the UK into a foul war in Iraq."

This is flatly not true. Blair is a fool and a knave but where did he lie? Nor was the war foul although it turned out badly. Whatever else you can say it was well, if foolishly, intentioned. Moreover the radicalization of British Muslims long pre-dates the Iraq War. There is no evidence that Iraq itself has caused any bombing except perhaps this latest one and it is too soon to say.

Posted by roger | July 4, 2007 2:53 PM:"As for saying things could get as bad as they are in Israel, again, that is an analogy that makes no sense at all, nothing in your comment defends it, and we can dismiss it as rhetorical froth."

Up to now there has been no reason to defend it and it is hardly froth. There is no good reason to think otherwise except the expense of international air travel. The world is full of people who support bombings of Americans.

Posted by roger | July 4, 2007 2:53 PM:"In the UK, things could get as bad as they have gotten before, in the UK, in the eighties. Things calmed down when the UK negotiated a settlement in Northern Ireland."

In the Eighties the IRA did not try that hard to kill civilians. They knew that the public would not stand many mass slaughters and so they usually phoned warnings. Not always of course. Which means that the IRA death toll was quite small. Not one of the Muslim suicide bombers has warned anyone yet. They have aimed for maximum civilian deaths and nothing else. No military targets. So political ones. There is nothing comparable to this sort of terrorism.

Posted by roger | July 4, 2007 2:53 PM:"Al qaeda being given a pass when the Pentagon decided to let Osama bin Laden escape at Tora bora (evidently, so that they would have a terrorist on tap to concentrate and frighten the American mind in preparing for the upcoming dirty campaign to invade Iraq) was obviously a terrible decision"

Sorry but would you mind defending these claims? First of that the Pentagon *decided* to let OBL escape. Second that they did so to frighten America. As I can see no logical basis for these claims at all, they must, I assume, be motivated by spite and hate. Why do you claim them?

Posted by roger | July 4, 2007 2:53 PM:"compounded by the unsuccessful use of tribute paid by the U.S. to Pakistan each year, which has not kept Pakistan from supporting, supplying, and doing logistics work for the Taliban"

Although they accepted the American destruction of the Taliban. Paying the Pakistanis has not been that successful but it has not been a total disaster either. Just mostly so.

Posted by roger | July 4, 2007 2:53 PM:"There's no doubt that Bush's decision to end the war on the only terrorists that attacked us in the spring of 2002 lead directly to 7/7 in the UK."

There is enormous doubt that this the case. Or rather you are right, there is no doubt that your claim is utterly specious and I find it hard to believe a rational person could claim it. The leader of the 7-7 attack's brother gave the Left Wing magazine Prospect an interview and pointed out his brother was radicalized in the 1990s. Before Blair or Bush were in power much less screwing up in Tora Bora. Except how would any further pursuit of OBL have stopped 7-7?

Posted by HeiGou | July 5, 2007 5:56 AM

"Of course, you've utterly failed to account for the fact that no one--not one person-- in America has been killed by terrorism in five and a half years"

If you're remarkably restrictive in what sort of terrorism you're willing to call "terrorism"; Apparently if you can't prove Bin Laden ordered it, it doesn't count. Still...

"At that point, it falls to the liberal to point to all this international data indicating a substantial surge in Islamist violence during the Bush years as evidence of the administration's failures."

I'm not terribly fond of the guy, I think several of his primary opponents would have made better Presidents, and as the lesser of two evils in the general election he could have been a lot lesser. But, still, the liberal needs to recognize that Bush isn't the world's President, he's the President of the United States. Other countries have their own governments, whose policies might just have something to do with what's going on there.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | July 5, 2007 6:29 AM

If you're remarkably restrictive in what sort of terrorism you're willing to call "terrorism"; Apparently if you can't prove Bin Laden ordered it, it doesn't count. Still...

So prove me wrong. What terrorist attacks have been committed on American soil since 9/11? The only way you can come up with anything at all is if you are wildly dishonest in what you consider terrorism (like the gentleman above who considered the DC sniper killings "terrorism".)

Posted by Freddie | July 5, 2007 8:10 AM

Only if we have some idea of the trend. It is not enough to say that it is not a problem now because it may not always be.

Okay. But, again-- surely, as the person who is arguing that we are going to see a sudden and enormous statistical change, it's on you to provide evidence to demonstrate why you think that's the case.

Posted by Freddie | July 5, 2007 8:17 AM

Posted by Freddie | July 5, 2007 8:10 AM:"So prove me wrong. What terrorist attacks have been committed on American soil since 9/11? The only way you can come up with anything at all is if you are wildly dishonest in what you consider terrorism (like the gentleman above who considered the DC sniper killings "terrorism".)"

I don't know if you can call that wildly dishonest. A guy called Muhammed goes around shooting White people at random with no obvious motive and most people would be inclined to assume it was terrorism. Especially when he rants about Jihad all the time and quotes the best bits from the Quran - you know, about slaying the pagans wherever you find them. However, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar drove his car into a packed group of students on March 3 2006 at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to "avenge the deaths of Muslims worldwide". This is not terrorism? What is it then? Hesham Mohamed Hadayet shoots up the El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport on July 4 2002 and that is not terrorism? What is it then? Road rage? Is LA airport not in the USofA by any chance?

Posted by HeiGou | July 5, 2007 10:32 AM

For some definitions of War. US soldiers crossed the Mexican border without asking Mexico in 1914 or so. Funny we don't get any Mexican suicide bombers taking revenge for Texas.

Yes, because the Mexicans are afraid that if they started, we might give Texas back.

Posted by Cyrus | July 5, 2007 10:44 AM

Matt, you assume that the failed London/Glasgow bombings were a direct result of Bush and Iraq. Perhaps you only read the NY Times, in which case such a presumption is understandable. If you read other reporting on the bombers, you would realize that they were radicalized long before we went into Iraq. The war provides a convenient pre-text, sure, but you do yourself and liberals no favors by pretending that radical Islamists wouldn't have been able to find some other convenient excuse for an attack even if we weren't in Iraq. They've always found a reason - Al Qaeda says it's Israel, but they've never bothered to go after Israel, other times its Afghanistan - were you against that war too? And on it goes. But you believe them, which is why very few people, even if they don't like Bush, find liberals to be competent enough to handle the terrorism threat.

But please, go back to talking about something people really care about: overpaid thugs in the NBA. What's your guess: will the charges against the first player from this year's draft to be arrested be a) weapons related, b) drugs related c) drunk driving d) spousal abuse or e) all of the above?

Or we could debate who will be the first one from this draft class to stop playing defense altogether and worry only about scoring more than everyone else?

Posted by dan | July 5, 2007 11:32 AM

Al Qaeda says it's Israel, but they've never bothered to go after Israel, other times its Afghanistan.

No. Bin Laden and his number two have said over and over again that it is the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia that compels them to attack US targets.

Terrorism, despite the attempts of the conservative media to change it, has a very specific definition. It is the use of deadly force against civilian targets in order to create fear, which is in turn used to leverage specific political goals. Someone shooting other people, or bombing them, because he hates America, or thinks that Allah wants him to, is not terrorism. Those attacks have no larger political purpose. What's truly bizarre is this notion that Al Qaeda has "secret" reasons for the 9/11 attacks (they hate us for our freedom!) For terrorism to work, it is absolutely essential for the terrorists to a)claim the responsibility for their attacks, and b) announce the specific goals of their campaign. That's not a product of ideology; it's a simple reality of using the tactic of terrorism. For a terrorist organization to lie about their goals is nonsensical. It's just counterproductive.

Posted by Freddie | July 5, 2007 12:03 PM

What I find obscene is conservatives who feel we need more tax cuts during a time of war. Yes rich people need more yachts while the GIs in Iraq lack proper gear and Walter Reed hospital falls into disrepair. Or those conservatives who feel we need to torture "suspects" in the war on terror in order to protect democracy. I could see this torturing creating more terrorist than helping. Plus it's wrong. There are many, many of these 2 types of conservatives and they are both more obnoxious and offensive than your typical anti-Bush partisan liberal who feels somehow the Iraq war retroactively caused 9-11 and poor ol' Saddam Hussein was framed up by Bush and the neocons.

Posted by Peter K. | July 5, 2007 12:18 PM

Freddie,

You're right, of course, that bin Laden gave the troops in Saudi as an excuse for his attacks, but it wasn't the only one. He has time and again used American support for Israel as another excuse. The important point, however, is these are both nonsense.

We've taken our troops out of Saudi, and what does Bin Laden say? "Oh, well, actually, we don't recognize Saudi borders, so we meant the whole Arabian Peninsula. If we were to ever take troops off the Peninsula altogether, his clarification of what he meant would expand even more. Then he'll say it's our support for the House of Saud in general that will bring on attacks. But we've been supporting the House of Saud since the creation of Saudi Arabia. As for support for Israel, this has always been a convenient excuse, and many Europeans and Americans believe it, arguing that the Israel-Palestinian crisis should get all of our attention, b/c when we fix that, we fix all Islamic terrorism. But if Bin Laden really cared about the Palestinians, he'd attack Israeli interests every now and then. And if our support for Israel was really what drives terrorism, you'd have expected Hamas to have been attacking the US for two or three decades at this point. But they haven't.

Yes, al Qaeda has a specific goal - as do other radical Islamist terrorist groups - they want land - territory they can control. But they have to start small to make it sound reasonable. They want the US out of Arab/Islamic countries so that they can establish control - and this is where Allah comes in - Allah supposedly wants them to kick out the Western imperialist infidels so they can rule according to Allah's will. It's political, absolutely, but it's also based on religion.

And, sure there will eventually be contention and fighting between Sunni and Shia, but more than that they care more about ending American/European/Israeli control and/or influence over these lands, so they work together. So, yes, of course they have a specific goal. That doesn't mean it's anything close to reasonable for us.

Posted by Dan | July 5, 2007 12:58 PM

Since Freddie apparently didn't click on the IBD link, below is a partial list of terrorist attacks since 9/11 that IBD referenced.

Only a hopelessly contorted definition of "terrorism" would exclude these incidents. If you choose to pretend these weren't terrorist incidents, then congratulations: you have something in common with George W. Bush.

• A 30-year-old Muslim man, Naveed Afzal Haq, who went on a shooting rampage at a Jewish community center in Seattle, announcing 'I'm a Muslim-American; I'm angry at Israel.'

• An Egyptian national, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, who shot two and wounded three at an Israeli airline ticket counter at LAX.

• A bearded 21-year-old student, Joel Hinrichs, who blew himself up with a backpack filled with TATP (the explosive of choice in the Mideast) outside a packed Oklahoma University football stadium not long after he started attending the local mosque.

• A 23-year-old student, Mohammed Ali Alayed, who slashed the throat of his Jewish friend in Houston after apparently undergoing a religious awakening (he went to a local mosque afterward).

• The D.C. snipers — John Muhammad and Lee Malvo, both black Muslim converts — who picked off 13 people in the suburbs around the Beltway as part of what Muhammad described as a 'prolonged terror campaign against America' around the first anniversary of 9/11, which he had praised.

• Omeed Aziz Popal of Fremont, Calif., who police said hit and killed a bicyclist there then took his SUV on a hit-and-run spree in San Francisco, mowing down pedestrians at crosswalks and on sidewalks before police caught up with him, whereupon the Muslim called himself a 'terrorist.'

• A 22-year-old Muslim, Ismail Yassin Mohamed, who stole a car in Minneapolis and rammed it into other cars before stealing a van and doing the same, injuring drivers and pedestrians, while repeatedly yelling, 'Die, die, die, kill, kill, kill' — all, he said, on orders from 'Allah.'

• A 22-year-old Iranian honors student, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, who deliberately rammed his SUV into a crowd at the University of North Carolina to 'punish the government of the United States' for invading Iraq and other Muslim nations.

Posted by Juan | July 5, 2007 1:04 PM

So, yes, of course they have a specific goal. That doesn't mean it's anything close to reasonable for us.

Of course not. Nothing justifies killing innocent people. The operative questions are a)what actual risk does terrorism represent for America, or the average American citizen, and b)how do we effectively and appropriately deal with that threat. Understanding Al Qaeda's motives are a key to both. As for whether or not bin Laden is simply looking for any motivation whatsoever to attack the US, I can only say that, first, if so, he's not a terrorist, he's a James Bond villain. And, second, I have to ask what evidence exactly leads you to that conclusion. We misunderstand our enemies at our peril, and when we chalk up anti-Americanism to simple lunacy (as it sounds you are doing), we do just that.

Posted by Freddie | July 5, 2007 1:06 PM

The right is correct.

Bush stopped the terrorists attacks on the US by appeasing Ben Laden and giving into his number one demand and pulling US troops out of Saudia Arabia.

Posted by spencer | July 5, 2007 1:24 PM

"Bush stopped the terrorists attacks on the US by appeasing Ben Laden and giving into his number one demand and pulling US troops out of Saudia Arabia."

Let's not forget giving in to bin Laden's number two demand and ending the 'blockade' (i.e. sanctions) of Iraq.

Posted by Fred | July 5, 2007 1:29 PM

Bush stopped the terrorists attacks on the US by appeasing Ben Laden and giving into his number one demand and pulling US troops out of Saudia Arabia.

So this was a bad thing? This line of thought scares the hell out of me. It doesn't matter what bin Ladin wants, the U.S. has a horrible, blood-smeared record of involvement in the Middle East. We played masters of the universe over there to try and beat down the communists, and Arab nationalism filled the void, then we didn't like that and did everything we could to beat that down. Islamism filled that void, and we don't like that. I have no idea what pops out next but it's crazy to keep screwing with these people and it obviously isn't helping anything to keep up our mania for basing real estate.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 5, 2007 2:03 PM

Only a hopelessly contorted definition of "terrorism" would exclude these incidents

No, only someone incredibly ignorant could confuse any of those attacks as terrorism, and only someone who was deeply proud about his own ignorance would use all examples that are definitively not terrorism to prove the converse.

Again-- simply killing people because you don't like America, or because you are a Muslim, or because you claim to be a terrorist, doesn't make you a terrorist. This is wishful thinking on the part of the people who committed these acts. Terrorism is an organized campaign coordinated to leverage specific political goals by creating fear of other attacks in the populace. The motivation for participating in terrorism is irrelevant. There have been communist terrorists, agrarian terrorists, Ludite terrorists, whatever. What defines them as terrorists is not their ideological baggage but their use of the tactic of terrorism.

A Muslim man who kills a Jew because he thinks thats what Allah told him to is not a terrorist. The DC snipers? Where was their list of demands? Where was the rest of their network? What goals did they hope to accomplish? How did they let the populace know who they were and what they wanted? They were mass murderers. Terrorists don't leave Tarot cards with "Dear policeman: I am God" written on them for the cops to find.

The truth is, you're simply ignorant as to what terrorism is-- the specific, historical definition of terrorism, not the FOX News "terrorism is anything we don't like". You can't cover up your ignorance by writing a list of Muslims who've done wrong.

Posted by Freddie | July 5, 2007 2:29 PM

If you believe that the Cheney-Bush administration has "prevented" al-Qaida terrorism in the US during the 5 years and 9 months since 9/11, I want to know your definition of "prevented". In particular: during the 7 years and 11 months between the first WTC attack and the end of the Clinton-Gore administration, al-Qaida managed no major attacks in the US. By your definition, isn't Dubya still a couple of years short of matching Clinton's record of "protecting us"?

Incidentally, Clinton managed to "protect us" without invading an irrelevant country, redefining torture, fiddling with habeas corpus, or tapping your phone without a warrant. If you argue that he was not really "protecting us" because al-Qaida was plotting 9/11 all that time, what makes you think they're not plotting the next 9/11 right now?

Finally, if al-Qaida pulls off the "next 9/11" next month, what _additional_ powers would you propose for "the President"? Keep in mind that "the President" may soon be another Clinton.

From all I can tell, the difference between die-hard Bushies and normal people is that die-hard Bushies are more frightened by "the terrorists" than normal people are.

-- TP

Posted by Tony P. | July 5, 2007 2:54 PM

Freddie,

I think you missed the more important point of my last post, that the political is intricately tied in with the religious. For example, some nut can believe Allah told him to kill Jews or Americans, b/c that will add (even slightly) to the ultimate cause of bringing down America or Israel. Clearly it's not going to do it on its own, but it can be seen as one more chink in the armor.

By the way, terrorism does not have to include demands, just a goal, however it may be defined. There's a difference. The goal itself can often be met easier through the act of violence itself (destroying something, overthrowing a government, etc.) rather than issuing demands. For example, al Qaeda wants the House of Saud and Mubarak, among others, gone. No negotiation, no shared power, they want them gone - and preferably dead. The violence they use in pursuit of that goal is still terrorism even though there are no demands.

All that is required is a goal, no matter how far-fetched it may be. In this case religious and political motives can be closely linked in motivating someone to pursue a goal through violence, and its victim may have no way of stopping it. This is why negotiating with al Qaeda is such an impossibility. Negotiating with the Soviets, once they got over the ideological phase of their revolution that left no room for a co-existing capitalist superpower, was possible because they were concerned, most of all for their own existence - they were no longer believers. Co-existence became a possibility in their mind (until the Soviet Union collapsed, of course). Al Qaeda's ultimate goal is the destruction of governments in the Arab/Islamic world, Europe and the US - they don't want co-existence. They are true believers. How do you deal with that?

Posted by Dan | July 5, 2007 3:09 PM

Al Qaeda's ultimate goal is the destruction of governments in the Arab/Islamic world, Europe and the US - they don't want co-existence. They are true believers. How do you deal with that?

I imagine that dealing with it would begin with recognizing that whatever their goals are, they have no power whatsoever to bring it about. I would also imagine that dealing with it would mean recognizing that our wild overestimation of their destructive power is a detriment to our ability to mobilize against this enemy in an effective way. And I would further recognize that our civil liberties, due process and national character are far too precious to be sacrificed in a fight against an enemy who poses no realistic challenge to us.

Once I got a grip, I would use the strategies and tactics that have been used in every counter-terrorism operation-- most important among them, a reliance on police action, as opposed to military power. Arrest them, try them, punish them according to applicable law. Then I would work to repair relations with the disenfranchised people who's logistical and political support made Al Qaeda possible. Not the bin Ladens or Al Zawhiris; they are beyond reform and can only be arrested. No, I'd try to improve our image with the people who are not terrorist but whose support makes the terrorism possible. I'd do this by seriously addressing the grievances of these people, and (where consistent with a moral foreign policy) ending US actions that create such anger and resentment. I'd create a well-funded foreign aid campaign to try to provide some of the basic necessities that make (native grown, grass roots )democratic reforms possible. Aside from this foreign aid, I'd get the hell out of their lives and affairs.

Posted by Freddie | July 5, 2007 3:28 PM

Me, yesterday:

"What about the link between nationalized health care and the terrorist attacks in Britain? How many of these terrorists were Muslim physicians -- recruited, presumably, because below-market physician salaries failed to attract enough bright native born Britons to the field."

The WSJ, today ("U.K. to Review Overseas Recruitment of Doctors After Bomb Plot", p. A4):

"When Britain's National Health Service was desperately short of doctors and nurses several years ago, it began recruiting overseas... The UK's effort to attract foreign doctors is running up against its effort to fight terrorism. Yesterday, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said his terrorism minister would review how the NHS recruits foreign health-care workers..."

Back to my original point, so quickly dismissed here: Why was there a shortage of physicians in Britain? Because nationalized health care set physicians wages at a level too low to attract enough quality British candidates. Why did Brits ignore the obvious risks in recruiting physicians and trainees from Muslim countries, post 9/11? Because political correctness and multiculturalism blinded them to the risks.

Now that no one can pretend to be ignorant of the risks of importing Muslim immigrants, can someone tell me why we in the United States should continue to do so? Why not a temporary moratorium on immigrants from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.? As the experiences of Sayyid Qutb and others have shown, time spent in the U.S. can often radicalize educated young Muslims, for various reasons (because the concept of dating threatens their sexual insecurities, because they feel humiliated by America's achievements versus that of their home countries, etc.).

Posted by Harry | July 5, 2007 3:51 PM

"I imagine that dealing with it would begin with recognizing that whatever their goals are, they have no power whatsoever to bring it about."

I disagree. I can easily see radical Islamists taking power in Saudi Arabia and getting their hands on the world's largest supply of oil. Or I can see them taking power in Pakistan and getting their hands on nuclear weapons and technology. In fact, they don't even need to take power in Pakistan for that to happen. All they need is for the Musharraf government to fall and the country's nuclear technology/weapons to go unguarded in the chaos and confusion. Their connections with the ISI are just an added bonus that will make getting their hands on these weapons or the materials needed to build them much easier.

The point is there are many extremely plausible ways radical Islamic terrorists can do immense damage to us. Will bin Laden take over the White House tomorrow or in 10 years? I kinda doubt it. Do Americans often tend to overreact in thinking every explosion, death, crime, mishap, etc is somehow related to terrorism? Sure. Does that mean the threat is not real? Absolutely not.

"Once I got a grip, I would use the strategies and tactics that have been used in every counter-terrorism operation-- most important among them, a reliance on police action, as opposed to military power."

Well, I strongly disagree with you on this, so it may be that we're going to get nowhere. For one thing, past counter-terrorism policies have often included an "acceptable loss" policy - attacks may occur, a handful of people may die, but by gum we're just gonna keep plugging along with the clues to make sure we build an airtight legal case that won't be affected by the legal loopholes the legal system sometimes unfortunately presents to criminals.

Obviously that was bad enough when casualties were in the single digits, or dozens, but it's even more unthinkable now. When a single terrorist attack can wipe out anywhere from hundreds to thousands, if not more, that approach is no longer feasible. In this case *every* single terrorist attack exceeds the "acceptable loss" numbers.

Clearly, with each individual attack, you're going to try to round up the individual terrorists responsible, as the British did rather well in the last week. Then you're going to look at those suspects, who they know, their networks, etc. as one method for rounding up future terrorists before they attack. So it's not that there isn't a role for the FBI in conjunction with other intelligence and law enforcement agencies. You're not going to send in the 101st Airborne to arrest Joe Terrorist living in Hamburg.

But then as you dig deeper and find the state support for these terrorists, military responses get put on the table. When you have radical Islamic terrorist groups roaming countries like Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, you're going to need something a little more powerful and with a little more reach than the NYPD. It's with these situations that you have to understand that a police response to the global problem of Islamic terrorism is not sufficient.

"No, I'd try to improve our image with the people who are not terrorist but whose support makes the terrorism possible."

We've actually done this in the past. The image of America improved significantly in the respective countries after the Tsunami and the earthquake in Pakistan, when it was the US military leading the way in providing aid. I don't disagree that these actions would be extremely helpful.

Posted by Dan | July 5, 2007 4:37 PM

Yes, terrorists getting nuclear weapons is the real nightmare. Its just too bad the bush2 decided that being a tough sounding a--hole was a priority over dealing with nuclear proliferation. North Korea. Iran. Pakistan.
Bush2 has been the worst president on this issue and the Republicans dont give a damn and walk around explaining the "9-11 changed everything" and 'you just don't understand'.
Nuclear nonproliferation has been a key issue for every president except this one. And to pretend that the Republicans somehow 'get it' in a way that the non-delusional members of the public do not is just bullshit.

Posted by Aaron | July 5, 2007 4:53 PM

Aaron, writing that nuclear proliferation has been "a key issue for every president except this one", is so demonstrably false that it tags you as a partisan hack.

The Bush administration pursued aggressive, multilateral diplomacy with North Korea on the nuke issue, after it became clear that the North Koreans had cheated on the deal they signed with the Clinton administration. It may turn out that Bush's 6-party NoKo deal is no better than Clinton's but it's ludicrous to say this hasn't been a key issue for the Bush administration.

On Iran, the Bush administration has been at least as active as the Clinton administration, working aggressively through the E-3 countries.

Also during the Bush administration, the A.Q. Khan network that had been active during the Clinton administration was shut down, Libya gave up its nuke program, and a multilateral naval alliance was established to combat nuke proliferation (the Proliferation Security Initiative).

Could Bush have done better on nuke proliferation? No question. But his efforts compare favorably with those of previous administrations.

Posted by Juan | July 5, 2007 5:07 PM

Harry, this is nonsense :-
"Back to my original point, so quickly dismissed here: Why was there a shortage of physicians in Britain? Because nationalized health care set physicians wages at a level too low to attract enough quality British candidates"

The reason there was a shortage of doctors in the NHS is twofold.
1 - the reduction in the number of hours junior doctors are allowed to work, per week.
2 - the number of doctors produced each year by UK medical schools. Entry to these schools has always been oversubscribed by a factor of about 300% by qualified candidates.

Cause 1 remains, and on balance is probably a good thing.
Cause 2 - since the election of the Labour Government in 1997, more universities have opened Med schools and existing Med schools have expanded. However it takes 7 years to train a doctor.

Neither cause has much to do with the infantile supply & demand concept of Harry.

Posted by dave heasman | July 12, 2007 6:08 AM