We have been discussing and discussing about terrorists all over the world. Although terrorism existed before 9-11, the effect of that event has been to propel the issue to the forefront, almost to a level of frenzy. 9-11 happened and the US reacted like an injured lion. It had to hit back at someone, somehow and it hit Afghanistan. OBL and his henchmen however avoided the bombs and the dragnet and have remained elusive so far. Then the US attacked Iraq as another step towards its War on Terror programme. My question is this. God forbid, but suppose the terrorists strike again, using something worse like a “dirty” nuclear device, and manage to kill an even larger number of people than in 9-11, what would be the reaction of the US? First strike, US took out Afghanistan and Iraq. Now if there is a second strike, who do you think will be next? How will the “great” but perpetually “afraid” nation respond?
Moderator’s Note: I’ll spare my colleagues in General Questions the trouble and go ahead and move this puppy on over to Great Debates.
I don’t think that’s a very fair characterization of the Afghan campaign. Osama bin Laden and his associates were the people who planned and backed the September 11 attacks; he was based in Afghanistan; and the Taliban was providing al-Qaeda with aid and sanctuary. Taking out bin Laden’s base, and the Taliban regime which was sheltering him, were necessary steps. It would have been foolish to have thought that the Afghan campaign was going to end the “war on terror”–or even a “war on al-Qaeda”–and I don’t think any serious person thought it would do so, not even if we had captured or killed bin Laden in October 2001, but it was the place we had to start.
The Iraq war is an entirely separate question, of course.
And I don’t know what the U.S. would do in response to another major terrorist attack on American soil. Partly it would depend on the nature of the attack, and on what we could find out about who carried it out. I’m certainly not real sanguine about the current administration picking the wisest course of action in such a case.
I have been thinking about this as well. I don’t think anyone would be “next” to any great degree. Internationally, I think there might be a reaction like “Okay, Syria. We are coming in to take a look around. Shut the hell up if you know what’s good for you”.
The reaction here at home is more interesting to me. I think another major attack would further marginalize the “civil liberties over security” crowd. I think that many of the principles of liberalism would take another hit in general. We wouldn’t hear much complaining about immigration crackdowns or racial profiling…spending on the DHS and CIA would expand again…and if the attack happens before the election, GWB wins in a landslide.
9/11 woke many people up in this country to the reality that the world is a bad place with bad people in it. Liberalism has always had trouble with this notion. Another attack would push many tenets of social liberalism into academic theory status rather than any kind of societal reality.
In any case I’ve already begun duct taping my entire house shut and I spend my evenings crouched under a school desk in my basement.
Seriously though, I don’t think that we would see a great deal of change in terms of military emphasis or attacks unless a new group of nationals was to be identified for the attack. I think that is a pretty unlikely scenario at best.
On the other hand, another terror attack, IMHO could have even more serious repercussions in regards to civil rights in this country, both in terms of rights of citizens being further infringed upon, and in terms of harassment of people of middle eastern decent living in America.
Why must the terrorist strike directly at/in the USA? They may very well achieve their desires by striking at US interests abroad, especially where it would hurt us the most. For example, why not attempt to take out the oil industry infrastructure at selected locations in the Middle East and other area around the world. If one assumes that oil is the lifeblood of the world economy, go after the oil fields, the infrastructure supporting the fields, the shipping facilities, etc.
A terrorist group need not be 100 percent successful in their endeavours. A significant disruption to world oil supplies should trigger enough dominos to fall that economic recovery would take years, if not longer. If the price of oil went up fity percent in say a month, would this not cause more than a shudder throughout the world? Sure, once the price of oil goes up enough to make off-line resources become fiscally available, it will still take months, if not years, for the infrastructure to take advantage of the higher prices. And what happens in the mean time? Can the US economy handle a spike to $5.00 a gallon in less than 90 days?
A chain is only as strongest as it weakest link. Go after the weak link. The rest will fall on its own accord.
Wow… so I guess all those other countries with socially liberal policies–like, say, national healthcare–have never been attacked, then? And they don’t have prisons or courts, because they deny the existence of “bad people”?
Lets try to keep the intellectual dishonesty to a minimum, shall we?
Lets review: The United States is the main enemy. The “Great Satan”. The source of all evil as far as radical Wahabbi muslims are concerned. Other countries with “socially liberal policies” have been attacked because they are allies with the United States and the terrorists are attempting to drive a wedge between us and them. This is especially true in Saudi Arabia, where any consorting with the west is seen by some as abhorrent.
Let me expand on my point of how leftist ideology and the current geopolitical reality are at odds. If another catastrophic attack on American soil happens, the result will be a further crackdown on immigration, closer monitoring of young Arab males and other security measures directly at odds with liberal philosophy. If another country is found complicit, there will be another attack. In short, more war abroad and more restrictions on civil liberties in the name of security at home. The further left you are, the more likely you will be to bemoan these developments. It won’t matter whether they make sense or if they work, some people will see them as “not worth the price”. But the worse the attack turns out to be, the more of a minority view this philosophy will become. 9/11 tipped the balance this direction. Another attack will keep it there.
They won’t because attacking the oil infrastructure harms them too. Their intention is to only hurt the US and not the world economy or themselves. Their enemy is only the US and those aligned with it, and not the rest of the world.
Sure. I’m ready when you are.
So, er, is it only Islamic terrorism that highlights the supposed flaws in social liberalism?
There are terrorist groups who have carried out attacks in other countries that are unrelated to any ties to the Great Satan (I’m sure you’ve heard of the IRA, for instance). And yet those countries are still definitely to the left of the United States. But even if we only limit it to Islamic terrorism… well, look at the recent Madrid bombing. If we can identify a political effect there at all, it was to move the government to the left, not to the right.
You seem to be ignoring the libertarian Republicans here, who as I understand it are quite concerned with civil liberties, but are not leftists. In fact, I find it bizarre that you would assume only liberals are opposed to trashing civil liberties in the name of national security.
Whatever label a person chooses to describe themselves politically, my point is that another attack here in the United States will further marginalize those who value civil liberties over security. I think they are in the minority already. If another attack happens, people will not bat an eye at racial profiling or any other security measures designed to prevent another attack.
Frankly, I don’t think most liberals, or most realists in general, are opposed to the sort of profiling that’s based on common sense and will help stop terrorists - the kind of profiling that inconveniences innocent people instead of imprisoning them.
Bill Maher mentioned this in his book When You Ride Alone, You Ride With Bin Laden: An 80 year old white woman is probably not a terrorist. We have limited resources to investigate potential terrorists, and those resources are best spent on the people who fit the profile of terrorists.
Big deal. There’s no “if” about it. Terrorists will, of course strike again. Just as, before 9/11, it was true that sooner or later terrorists were going to strike again. It’s what they do.
They’ll either get you or they won’t. We’ll either get them or we won’t. And life goes on.
At all times, probably even if they’re deploying hydrogen warheads, the biggest threat to our way of life isn’t the terrorists themselves, it’s our own government* and our own fearfulness. That’s the main thing we have to be on alert for and guard against.
- Any government, not just US and not just the administration of GWB. This isn’t intended as a partisan comment. In any relatively open & free society, the risk from terrorism is that the domestic government, in an attempt to come to grips with the threat of terrorism, morphs into a police state.
I agree with you, Mr2001. But there is a small minority who seem to think that any attempt at security such as those we are discussing will lead us down the path of jackboots and book burning. It’s those folks who think that John Ashcroft is rubbing his hands in glee at the idea of throwing innocent people in prison that makes me roll my eyes. Their view of the world is naive and simplistic.
Well sadly, it’s become clear to me over the past couple of years that unless the attacks are right under our American noses, we just don’t really care. While the bombing in Spain wasn’t a US INTEREST per se, it was still pretty damn deadly, and already most citizens have forgotten all about it. Small terrorist attacks all over the MidEast and we give it one day of news coverage and move on. Hell, they sawed off Berg’s head and no one cares anymore. It makes me more sad than anything else.
You are absolutely correct. Those of us discussing this issue on this board or with others are certainly in the minority. We can butt heads all day long about whether the result of the Madrid bombings will bring about a similar attack in the United States (yes, it will)…and the majority of the country can’t find Spain on the map. That is why I continue to maintain that another 9/11 scale attack within our borders will result in huge societal changes toward security and away from civil liberties.
So most dopers feel that there will be no repercussion other than stricter and maybe even suffocating rules that will make people lose civil liberties. The US will not attacking any country this time, because the list is already exhausted. OBL is still around somewhere in the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. AQ killed people in Spain. Whatever the US and its “coalition of the willing” has done, the terrorists have not been subdued. In fact if one were to believe reports the number of terrorists has swelled to a massive 18,000. With them not getting caught nor their attacks reducing, I don’t think there is any reason to believe that the war on terror is headed in the right direction. On the contrary, the terrorists are in a way succeeding. An average American today is a scared man in his own country! I can picture OBL running his fingers through his beard and smirking to himself at the thought! He will go on with his terrorist acts and the average Joe American will keep getting more and more frightened because the enemy is virtually invisible and seemingly invincible!
Maybe eventually out of exasperation, the US will fire a few nukes in the general direction where OBL is “believed” to be hiding. It will kill a lot of other people, but won’t they be the ones who were giving him sanctuary and so deserve the same fate?
[QUOTE=wisernow]
An average American today is a scared man in his own country! I can picture OBL running his fingers through his beard and smirking to himself at the thought! He will go on with his terrorist acts and the average Joe American will keep getting more and more frightened because the enemy is virtually invisible and seemingly invincible!/QUOTE]
Uh…not really. I think most of us know that, even in NY or DC or LA, the odds are very long we’ll get caught in a 9/11-sized attack. The prevailing emotion I see around me is anger, not fear.