I think there is a distinction to be drawn between blame and responsibility here. To be clear, let’s move away from the current topic and move to something easier to assess.
A three year old child is being supervised by an 18 year-old baby sitter who is reading her magazine rather than watching the child closely. The child knows that it is not supposed to climb up on a chair and try to get cookies out of the porcelain cookie jar, but notices that the teen is distracted, moves a chair over, climbs up, and in trying to get the top off knocks the cookie jar off the table breaking it into many, many pieces.
In this case, the child knew the rules, but really did not have enough self-control to obey them, so one might assess a portion of the blame for the broken cookie jar to the child, but very little, and all of the responsibility to the babysitter.
Had the child been 7, the age of reason, as my dad used to call it, one might give the child all the blame and at least half or more of the responsibility for the incident.
When one is assessing blame for the terrorist attacks, one must assess all of the blame on the terrorists and thier organizers and funders for the attacks and the deaths that they cause. Without thier direct efforts, the explosions would not have happened. Blame is very simple in that way. They did it. They planned it. They were the direct cause of the incident, either by action, training or funding.
Responsibility can be more comprehensive.
Certainly there are those in England responsible for the safety of those that were killed. One need not try to blame them because 1) they were not the direct cause and 2) you can bloody well figure that they are being a lot harder on themselves than any of us are.
Next, is there some sense in which Tony Blair and George Bush, through their actions created a situation in which it was more likely that the terrorists selected these targets in this country at this time. This is a more extended sense of responsibility. It may have some validity but we need to be cautious because it is akin to saying that the parent shares responsibility for the cookie incident by buying cookies, buying a cookie jar, buying a breakable cookie jar, placing it on that table, not purchasing a barrier between the chair and the table, not providing proper training for the sitter or the child in terms of how to act regarding the cookie jar, awareness of the potential hazards it presents, or the need for vigilance required in the situation. We also do not know at this, juncture, whether there was a pre-argument with the parent about whether cookies could or should be consumed. If there had been a prior cookie conflict and this had not been properly communicated to the sitter, this could have created conditions likely to have created the incident.
Now, let us introduce a paralell situation, the wife decides that the babysitter dresses immodestly and flirts with her husband too much and needs a pretext on which to fire her. (Invade Iraq) So when her husband is not looking she gives the baby half a cookie, tells the baby that that is all the cookie that she can have tonight, causes a big cookie argument, and tells the baby “Whatever you do, don’t try to look for cookies in the cookie jar, there are no cookies there!” in a tone that suggest to the baby that there very well might be cookies in there after all. For example, where is the OTHER HALF of that cookie?
In such a case the wife might bear a great deal of the responsibility of the cookie jar crash. Perhaps most or all of it. And for drawing the Teen into defending herself from the aftermath. That example might explain the invasion of Iraq, but it does not explain these bombings.
I think that the bombings happened in London because access to the U.S. is more difficult right now. Period. The FBI did a good job sweeping through the country and ejecting potential terrorists after 9/11. Probably to the point where the U.S. will face lawsuits because of it, but it has been effective so far.
The EU borders make it much easier for terrorists to cross from country to country and get into London, those this group appears to have come from England. One has to wonder though, with England’s traditional snobbishness towards us and them how English anyone with non-English ancestry feels there even after several generations. Probably much less so in the U.S. with its culture of the melting pot where the whole point of coming here is to become an American. To consider yourself an American.
That may mean that to operate as a terrorist here, one has to be more careful than in some other countries because many if not most mid-east immigrants see themselves as becoming Americans first. I have to admit my true ignorance on this subject, but that is my suspicion. Perhaps this is less true in other countries where mid-eastern immigrants are barely tolerated or hated. This is a lesson for us. There is safety in knowing who has come here to live, and knowing them well.
So how much responsibility can we put on Bush for this attack? I’d love to pin it all on him, but frankly the evidence is not there to support that much responsibility.
The history of terrorism in the Middle East is complex, old, and rooted in conflicts that have nothing to do with Bush. True his invasion of Iraq has not helped much, but England has hundreds of years of colonial activity in the Middle East that is remembered well. The U.S. is a target because of its wealth and military power, England is a target for far deeper reasons. This does not excuse the terrorists or Mr. Bush for his actions in going into Iraq under false pretenses. It only means that his responsiblity for these specific attacks is pretty darn small compared to the terrorists themselves or the historical actions of Parliment and the Royals.
For those interested in my views on George Bush’s Intelligence, follow the link “George Bush is So Stupid That…” and feel free to add your own marks of stupidity.
That’s my two cents.
Peter, The Peter Files Blog