Considering how 9/11 brought the nation together in a surge of patriotism can we expect the same thing to happen next time?
The War on Iraq has polarized our society in a way that was unknown before September 11th. The anti-war movement often points to this war, through its promotion of widespread anti-Americanism, as a major source of new terrorism. This seems to me a perfectly reasonable connection to draw though its relevance is hard to prove directly; obviously the terrorist threat was bad enough before all of this. W sold this war to the US and it’s allies using the same rhetoric that brought about his infamous “Axis of Evil” speech, no quarter for nations that pursue WMDs and support and harbor terrorists. Supporters of the Iraq war (whether right or wrong) often see it as a proactive move against sources of terror.
I’m not really interested in the relative strengths of either argument, they are contentious enough and in any event I think the anti-war people have the highground (if only on the spreading radical anti-Americanism and therefore terror point). What I wonder about here is how such views will play in the sort of situation we saw in the weeks preceding 9/11. Will both sides be so busy pointing the finger at each other for encouraging terror that neither can be reconciled? Obviously emotions will run high, will the backlash against those who are percieved to be anti-American reflect that? Or will the backlash be against Bush and his blundering diplomacy be enough to shake his support? Personally I find the second possibility rather unlikely, attacks on native soil tend to rally the populace around their leaders regardless of whether the support is deserved. And yet if we don’t see more paralysing polarization will the threat of more ill-advised moves by the Bush administration become a reality?
If another major terrorist attack takes place, many in the peace movement will probably feel VINDICATED. They’re liable to say, “The attack on Iraq only increased the anger of the Arab world, and made an attack like this more likely.”
I’m not saying I buy that reasoning (I definitely don’t), but that’s what peaceniks are likely to argue.
I agree with astorian. A good number on both sides will try to spin it as “See? See?” The anti-war will spin it like astorian said, while the pro-war will spin it like “Sure it was bad, but what if they has used WMD supplied by a government like Saddam’s?” This, of course, assumes a non-NBC attack.
None of us knew how we would feel about September 11th before it happened. It was an event that was absolutely unthinkable (by anyone other than those who committed the act) until it happened. The next terrorist attack that is successful will catch us equally off guard. A lot will depend on who it comes from.
Bush and those who support his current apalling actions have forgotten in the short space of a year and a half that September 11th was not brought about by the leaders of nations seeking weapons of mass destruction. It was carried out by 20 angry men with a plan.
A least 2 million people in dozens of countries around the globe have been made angry enough by the actions of the president to leave their homes and march in the streets. This is 100,000 times as many as it took to kill over 2000 Americans in one day on their own soil. How many of these people might be angry enough to attack the US now is impossible to say. What nation they may come from is equally hard to say (at least before all the war talk the list of possible nations was down to a realtively manageable few). How we see ourselves and each other in the wake of that is anyone’s guess.
Yes, if another major terrorist attack occurs, we’ll probably see another wave of ‘patriotism’ (if pasting US flag decals on cars is a meaningful definition of patriotism). It’s not clear to me how the anti-war movement might be blamed for the terrorist act, however; so far, anti-war protests have done nothing at all to inhibit the administration’s pursuit of its perceived enemies.
Of course, wouldn’t this also mean that one of the reasons given for invading Iraq, that it would make us safer from terrorism, was false?
This is an interesting quesiton. On the one hand, part of why I oppose this war is that I do believe it’ll make recruiting far easier for ObL and his horrific buddies. On the other hand, there’s no way that, if I’m right, it’s going to help the anti-war movement: if I’m right and we’re attacked by terrorists enraged by Bush’s cynical cavalier bullying attitude to the rest of the world, it’s almost certain to heighten, not curtail, our military activities. It’s a dangerous positive feedback loop.
Azeal, the word I find key in your OP is “polarization” - the “you are either with us, or against us” sort of mentality. The war in Iraq has created a polarization among the US population that didn’t exist immediately after 9-11.
And I agree with astorian, many on the anti-war side will claim the next terrorist attack as “proof” that we are less safe from terrorism than we were before the war on Iraq. And I agree with asterion (man, that’s confusing!).
Since we’ve been on and off of Orange alert recently, and had plenty of terrorist warnings, I wonder what will happen if there aren’t any terrorist attacks in the near future. I’m sure Bush will take credit (perhaps deservedly so, perhaps not). But what will the anti-war folks say?
Like a Willem de Kooning painting, the abstraction of blood and fleshtones will serve as a mirror into the mind, and each individual will see what they wish to see.
My guess is that another large-scale terrorist attack during the Bush administration would mean that the anti-war movement would suddenly have another U.S. invasion to protest. My money would be on Iran, simply because they’re probably an easier target. Word is that North Korea actually has nukes already, so they probably wouldn’t be the first choice. I could be wrong; I’ve never seriously considered invading either country.
Of course, if the attack can actually be linked to a specific nation, the U.S. might invade that nation instead; it’s hard to say. Otherwise, the invasion will probably be targeted at one of the two nations above, depending on the nature of the attack; if the terrorists are identified as Mideastern, then Iran definitely.
Yeah, what Sofa King said, except I’m not nearly as eloquent.
But then again BobT, eloquence is a poor subsitute for substance.
When rational men can only see what they want to see, then we as freemen are doomed. The ability to discern objective truth is fundamental to the spread of democracy. Sadly, many among us today temporize the differences between good and evil as a way of avoiding our responsibilities toward our legacy of liberty.
…mmm, forget what I said above. What I meant to say was that the anti-war protesters are sissies and are afraid of tyrants.
Crap! Cut my post short, why don’t I? Preview, not post! Doofus.
Anyhoo, either way, there will probably be absolutely no change in either the pro- or anti-war camps, with each side becoming more and more entrenched. The anti-war movement would probably grow somewhat with each successive invasion, fueled by the increasing casualties and by growing awareness that America no longer has the sympathy or support of the rest of the world. I suspect that there would also be less of a reflexive “rallying” around Bush, as his political opponents would use new attacks on America against him–at some point, it’s going to become implausible to blame everything on Clinton. Before long, a new administration will likely have been elected, and they may try to mend some fences at that point.
And I meant to say that the pro-war folks have trouble discerning suspicion versus confirmed fact. When challenged with the facts, they refuse to acknowledge them.
I think the reaction after a future terror attack will be very similar to the reaction after September 11th: blind rage, searching for a target. People who oppose this war out of concerns of future terrorist attacks will be ridiculed if they even mention the fact. After 9/11, anyone who dared to suggest that our past foreign policy had even the faintest correlation with the anti-Americanism that led to the attack faced nothing but outrage and hostility. People want to focus on punishing those directly responsible for hurting us, not discussing how to keep nutballs from hating us in the first place.
Since it is my opinion that the anti-war people are not basing their protestations on the facts anyway, a terrorist attack isnt going to sway them one tiny bit, unless they personally become the victims. Then theyll either turn into rabid hate mongering pro-war-kill-em-all advocates or quietly go to a corner and disappear. Which wont really matter because another diehard peacenik will take up the challenge and take his place.
I don’t get it. How many fatwas or jihads have to be declared against the United States before we realize that terrorism is in our forseeable future?
Were the attacks on the WTC (the first), the Cole, the Saudi barracks, the two embassies, etc., Clinton’s fault? There has been terror against US targets for decades. Terrorism has been somewhat limited within the United States for a while. If it resumes, it means that someone slipped through more than anything else.
Another terrorist attack won’t change anyone’s minds, but it will make them shout LOUDER.
The right will grip power that much more strongly and the left will become increasingly revolutionary. Who knows, maybe it will eventually lead to a rise in domestic terrorism. Then in an internal feedback loop, a growing police state starts to clamp down on the populace, and even the far right joins in the fray as their gun rights get challenged. Soon the US is enveloped in utter chaos and lawlessness. MWAHAHAHA! My evil plans will come to fruition, then I will unveil the doomsday device and all will bow to my might.