Brit backlash: against Al-Qaeda, or against Blair?

[Jakub]

It'll be interesting how the Brits react, if they pull the old stiff upper lip or pull a Spain.

[Nick Walter]

I'm guessing an initial show of support for the government followed in the next six months by a huge public cry to withdraw from Iraq.

[Nellie]

Pull out of Iraq? Fuck that, I still believe we have an obligation to at least make an attempt to stabilise it having done our utmost to help screw it up.

If the bus explosion was a suicide bomber then what the hell was anyone supposed to do about it?

Much as I'm no fan of Blair I won't be screaming for his head or our withdrawal from Iraq any more than I called for Thatcher's or Major's head and us pulling out of Northern Ireland when the IRA were running around blowing up the place. We managed over 30 years of that so I don't see one attack in London making a whole amount of difference overall.

It's a regrettable side effect of being in a supposedly free society that we are unfortunately vulnerable to attacks such as this. It would not surprise me if I were to learn that the people who did this would otherwise be considered British anyway.

I don't support Blair as a matter of general policy but as there was no option to remain indifferent to him I've gone for support.

[wildpokerman]

There's something about US and Brittish culture where if you tell us what to do we do the opposite. I expect increased support for Iraq,.

[TriggerHappy]

There's something about US and Brittish culture where if you tell us what to do we do the opposite. I expect increased support for Iraq,.

Pretty much agree.

Public figures generally get better support after these kinds of crisis.

[Jakub]

Public figures generally get better support after these kinds of crisis.
In the UK, or generally?

I seem to recall something about Spain...

[Nellie]

We're not Spain.

We also have a more direct involvement in Iraq and at a risk of gross generalisation most of the people who were against us going into Iraq to begin with recognise that we can't just pull out now, we have an obligation to try and finish the job.

Also I have no idea what that would do politically to "the special relationship".

[Brian Rucker]

That'd be the one where the UK supports us in all things and the reverse isn't true? Christ, even Saudi Arabia's got a better Special Relationship with Bush's Washington than that.

[RichardC]

I don't get it. What does a terrorist attack have to do with either Blair or Iraq specifically? Much as I dislike him as a leader and oppose the war, I've not seen any evidence of these things being linked - just an unverified statement some group nobody's heard of stuck up on the web.

[Nellie]

That's the one. There'd still end up being a deal done before we pulled out. While our forces in Iraq are small compared to the overall US effort, is the US really going to be happy trying to plug that gap?

Support for Blair may not be that high at the moment but it is still high enough, and although support for Iraq wasn't as high in the US, it is still higher than it was in Spain as is support for the US generally even if we do occasionally opine that Bush is a moron.

We may have done the odd deal with terrorist groups in the past, but we've never had our way of life dictated to us by them either. And I will be extremely surprised and saddened if todays event change that. The "voice of the people" paper the s*n has remained fervently in favour of the war and I doubt very much over the next few days that it will spout anything other than "fuck you" rhetoric over this.

[Jakub]

I don't get it. What does a terrorist attack have to do with either Blair or Iraq specifically? Much as I dislike him as a leader and oppose the war, I've not seen any evidence of these things being linked - just an unverified statement some group nobody's heard of stuck up on the web.
What matters is public opinion.

Do you think Britain would have been a target if not for its involvement in Iraq?

[JM]

We don't think quite like that. As a people, we generally don't agree with the war on Iraq. However, we also don't agree on us being blow to kibble either. I don't believe it'll change people's opinions.

[Nellie]

Yes.

I don't recall the USA being in either Afghanistan or Iraq in 2001.

[quatoria]

Yes.

I don't recall the USA being in either Afghanistan or Iraq in 2001.

No, but it was in Saudi Arabia, which was where the 9/11 attackers came from.

[Nellie]

That we're hosting G8 attended by close friend George is probably enough reason. If it was that tied into Iraq then they are shit at timing. At least in Madrid it was timed to co-incide/exacerbate already high public dissent for the presence there to begin with.

I didn't believe the justification for going into Iraq at the time, I still don't now and don't think we should have invaded there to begin with. Now we are there I believe we have an obligation to finish what we started. This changes nothing.

I'm not sure that this will increase support for what we're doing in Iraq, but I'm pretty sure that it won't lead to calls in serious numbers that we drop everything and pull out. Not to mention our presence there is much, much higher and more ingrained than Spain's was. Even if we assume "the people" scream for us to withdraw tomorrow, it is not something that is going to happen over the course of a few days.

[Tim Partlett]

Based on my experience of being in Britain during IRA terrorist attacks I'd suspect the following reaction:

1. Increased anti-Muslim feeling, resulting in indiscriminate attacks.
2. Grim resolve to stay in Iraq, but not increased support for the occupation.
3. Increased support for the "war on terror", with the tabloids (mostly owned by Fox's Murdoch) will be filled with "bomb the bastards" style headlines.

I don't think Blair will be blamed, nor will he gain any additional support. Personally, although I don't support his involvement in Iraq, I think he's done a pretty good job of dealing with terrorism in the UK. You can't stop every attack, but you can reduce them and reduce their severity. Considering Britain's prominent position as an ally of America it is amazing we have survived this long without a bombing.

[Brian Rucker]

My best understanding of Al Qaida strategy (to the extent one can think of it as a functioning group rather than just a loose ideology) is that they want to financially cripple the western powers that support "corrupt" regimes in the region. This is why they hit the Twin Towers in New York, because they calculated serious economic fallout for little expense.

And while some folks think they were confident the U.S. wouldn't go after them because we'd retreated in the past, my theory is that they wanted us to hit Afghanistan where they thought they'd relive the glory days of the Jihad against the Soviets - thus further draining our economy while gaining recruits and support. This didn't happen, we won clean and fast, but we managed to give Bin Ladin's boys what they wanted in Iraq instead.

I agree Spain was atypical. That was about the war in Iraq. However, hitting London during the G8 fits back into the 'hit 'em in the pocketbook' strategy they'd been pursuing until that point. Look at the markets today. And if this does stiffen the resolve of Britain and the U.S. to keep on spending money and lives on Iraq, so much the better for the terrorists. If it weakens resolve, they win too. But in any event they've proved themselves still relevant and dangerous.

[Nellie]

1. Increased anti-Muslim feeling, resulting in indiscriminate attacks.


Sadly I don't disagree with you on that point, but it is interesting that they hit Aldgate, an area of London with a huge Muslim population.

Considering Britain's prominent position as an ally of America it is amazing we have survived this long without a bombing.

This is one of the few areas that I have actually belived official reports of thwarting attacks. While our intelligence compared to Northern Ireland may not be as good, we do still have a long experience against this sort of thing and arguably at this stage, we are still dealing with a relatively inexperienced threat. Unfortunately it's a kind of Darwinism, you weed out the obvious operators pretty quickly leaving the competant ones behind.

[Andrew Mayer]

Again it comes back to accountability. If you tell the world that you are waging a "war on terror" how do you prove that you are winning that war, and when do you have to take responsibility for losing it?

[quatoria]

Again it comes back to accountability. If you tell the world that you are waging a "war on terror" how do you prove that you are winning that war, and when do you have to take responsibility for losing it?

You don't have to prove it, and you never take responsibility, of course. Condoleeza Rice appeared on BBC earlier this morning to announce that this is part of the 'World War on Terror.' Keep racheting up the dramatic name of the conflict and you never have to justify why you aren't winning it.

[TriggerHappy]

Again it comes back to accountability. If you tell the world that you are waging a "war on terror" how do you prove that you are winning that war, and when do you have to take responsibility for losing it?

When most of your victories are classified (or at least not released to the public), it's kind of hard to do either.

Unless you want the government to say just how many bombs it stops, which would inspire more fear in the general public. Kind of counterproductive when you're trying to stop terrorism...

[Brian Rucker]

That's precisely what we need in our democracies. Ignorant publics. And best not tell us how many sharks are really lurking in the Florida surf either.

[tromik]

Mission Accomplished was how long ago? And the insurgents are in thier last throes (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.iraq/)!

[Andrew Mayer]

Again it comes back to accountability. If you tell the world that you are waging a "war on terror" how do you prove that you are winning that war, and when do you have to take responsibility for losing it?

When most of your victories are classified (or at least not released to the public), it's kind of hard to do either.

Unless you want the government to say just how many bombs it stops, which would inspire more fear in the general public. Kind of counterproductive when you're trying to stop terrorism...

How wonderfully Orwellian: "We can't tell you that it's working!"

Meanwhile, Bush's flypaper rationale looks pretty dead right now.

[antlers]

Meanwhile, Bush's flypaper rationale looks pretty dead right now.

I don't know about that. We're fighting them in London so we don't have to fight them in New York or Los Angeles.

[Jakub]

Andrew, cut the rhetoric and vitriol down just a bit, will you?

Do you really expect them to tell you it's working?

Did you expect Bush to tell you that the ground attack in Iraq would start one day BEFORE "Shock and Awe"? Did you expect Rumsfeld to explain that they weren't going to wait for 4th infantry division to arrive from Turkey before launching the assault?

Not everything in the world is a great Republican conspiracy designed to fuck you up the ass.

Consider:

In the four years since September 11th, this is only the second Al-Qaeda attack in that time. I think it's safe to say that we have had them on their heels during this time.

[RichardC]

Do you think Britain would have been a target if not for its involvement in Iraq?

Er...yes? Just like it's been a target for decades anyway.

This really doesn't change anything at all.

[Tim Partlett]

In the four years since September 11th, this is only the second Al-Qaeda attack in that time. I think it's safe to say that we have had them on their heels during this time.

Or it could mean that the actual number of people prepared and organised enough to commit acts of international terrorism is tiny and so they only strike occasionally.

[Jason Lutes]

Andrew, cut the rhetoric and vitriol down just a bit, will you?

Do you really expect them to tell you it's working?

Did you expect Bush to tell you that the ground attack in Iraq would start one day BEFORE "Shock and Awe"? Did you expect Rumsfeld to explain that they weren't going to wait for 4th infantry division to arrive from Turkey before launching the assault?

Not everything in the world is a great Republican conspiracy designed to fuck you up the ass.

Consider:

In the four years since September 11th, this is only the second Al-Qaeda attack in that time. I think it's safe to say that we have had them on their heels during this time.

While I agree that we appear have general non-traditional threats "on their heels," I'm afraid that comparing the revelation of military plans ahead of time to the public acknowledgment of thwarted attacks is itself a bit disingenuous.

Just within the last hour, the U.S. DHS has elevated the national threat level from Yellow to Orange, in response to the London bombing. Are you saying that the powers that be have had concrete successes and kept them utterly secret, refraining from adjusting the threat level in response? Since this administration is so well-versed in the application of fear tactics, I find this doubtful.

More likely, attacks just simply haven't been attempted against U.S. assets because heightened security and "taking the fight to them" has managed to suppress any effort to hit us on our own soil. Not that our security is so incredibly high, mind you -- I think our relative safety since 9/11 is due in large part to the lack of resources available to those who would seek to hit us where we live.

The "War on Terror" has some very effective and practical aspects which appear to be working, but the ideological rhetoric driving it is Orwellian, as Andrew says -- obfuscating, meaningless doublespeak.

[Jakub]

Governments do brag when they accomplish something, but not always. Remember when those explosives were found in the UK? Or when we capture or kill some Al-Qaeda leader? We hear about it every now and then.

Look, no matter what they do, guys like Andrew are going to get their panties in a bunch. Brag about your successes? Then Andrew's going to find a way to bitch at them for keeping people in fear, for making up success, or for alerting the enemy of our activity. Don't say anything? Then Andrew is going to bitch that the war on terror is a sham and that we're wasting billions and restricting civil liberties fighting an invisible Orwellian foe.

And just because some of the administration's actions fit into Orwell's fears, that doesn't mean that 1984 is the only possible result in this. 1984 is a cautionary tale, a possibility, not a guaranteed recipe.

Skepiticism Good.
Paranoia Bad.

[Tim Partlett]

Governments will brag about every success they have. They may keep what they consider a threat secret, but if they thwart a potential threat, even if they have little evidence to support that it really is a threat, they will make this very clear. It's in their best interests to. People will panic if they think that there may be a threat and it hasn't been dealt with, but people will feel reassured if they are told of a threat that has been negated. I don't believe, therefore, that the governments are hiding any thwarted threats against us and that there is a bigger problem than we are seeing.

[steve]

Andrew, cut the rhetoric and vitriol down just a bit, will you?
Not everything in the world is a great Republican conspiracy designed to fuck you up the ass.

[Andrew Mayer]

Look, no matter what they do, guys like Andrew are going to get their panties in a bunch. Brag about your successes? Then Andrew's going to find a way to bitch at them for keeping people in fear, for making up success, or for alerting the enemy of our activity. Don't say anything? Then Andrew is going to bitch that the war on terror is a sham and that we're wasting billions and restricting civil liberties fighting an invisible Orwellian foe.

Seriously, go screw yourself. I'm not your "guys like anything". I'm don't fit into your little boxes, and I'm not the paper cut-out you'd like me to be.

Here's my answer to your BS strawman 'conundrum' as to what Bush could do. Set targets, have actual goals, and you make your people responsible for meeting them. It's called responsibility, and it's worked throughout history.

And just because some of the administration's actions fit into Orwell's fears, that doesn't mean that 1984 is the only possible result in this. 1984 is a cautionary tale, a possibility, not a guaranteed recipe.
Skepiticism Good.
Paranoia Bad.

And how do you know how and when you should slip from one to other?

Set targets, have actual goals, and you make your people responsible for meeting them. It's called responsibility, and it's worked throughout history.


FYI, international terrorism is on the rise (http://tkb.org/Category.jsp?catID=328).

http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/images/tkbinternationalattacks.png

[LarryLard]

We don't think quite like that. As a people, we generally don't agree with the war on Iraq. However, we also don't agree on us being blow to kibble either. I don't believe it'll change people's opinions.

Hear hear. The Luftwaffe couldn't change our minds with twenty thousand tons of explosive. A handful of Islamist militants aren't gonna make the people of this city afraid to leave the house.

This morning, as usual, I was unable to board the first tube train that arrived, because it was full to the rafters. The people were quieter than usual, maybe, but they were still there.

Red Ken gave an excellent statement from Singapore which I think bears repeating in full here:


This was a cowardly attack, which has resulted in injury and loss of life. Our thoughts are with everyone who has been injured, or lost loved ones. I want to thank the emergency services for the way they have responded.

Following the al-Qaeda attacks on September 11th in America we conducted a series of exercises in London in order to be prepared for just such an attack. One of the exercises undertaken by the government, my office and the emergency and security services was based on the possibility of multiple explosions on the transport system during the Friday rush hour. The plan that came out of that exercise is being executed today, with remarkable efficiency and courage, and I praise those staff who are involved.

I'd like to thank Londoners for the calm way in which they have responded to this cowardly attack and echo the advice of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair - do everything possible to assist the police and take the advice of the police about getting home today.

I have no doubt whatsoever that this is a terrorist attack. We did hope in the first few minutes after hearing about the events on the Underground that it might simply be a maintenance tragedy. That was not the case. I have been able to stay in touch through the very excellent communications that were established for the eventuality that I might be out of the city at the time of a terrorist attack and they have worked with remarkable effectiveness. I will be in continual contact until I am back in London.

I want to say one thing specifically to the world today. This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It was not aimed at Presidents or Prime Ministers. It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, for class, for religion, or whatever.

That isn't an ideology, it isn't even a perverted faith - it is just an indiscriminate attempt at mass murder and we know what the objective is. They seek to divide Londoners. They seek to turn Londoners against each other. I said yesterday to the International Olympic Committee, that the city of London is the greatest in the world, because everybody lives side by side in harmony. Londoners will not be divided by this cowardly attack. They will stand together in solidarity alongside those who have been injured and those who have been bereaved and that is why I'm proud to be the mayor of that city.

Finally, I wish to speak directly to those who came to London today to take life.

I know that you personally do not fear giving up your own life in order to take others - that is why you are so dangerous. But I know you fear that you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society and I can show you why you will fail.

In the days that follow look at our airports, look at our sea ports and look at our railway stations and, even after your cowardly attack, you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will arrive in London to become Londoners and to fulfil their dreams and achieve their potential.

They choose to come to London, as so many have come before because they come to be free, they come to live the life they choose, they come to be able to be themselves. They flee you because you tell them how they should live. They don't want that and nothing you do, however many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.

[Dante Rising]

The British people are a remarkably determined group. There will be no appeasement.

Pull out of Iraq? Fuck that


See what I mean? We could not ask for better allies

[Nellie]

http://pubphilosopher.blogs.com/pub_philosopher/2005/07/us_army_flinche.html

I have seen a hint that some Americans think that we will give in to terrorism eventually. This article by John Derbyshire, in the National Review, captures that feeling. Mark Steyn, writing in the Washington Times, is convinced that we will "go back to sleep" and pretend that the threat of terrorism has gone away...

It may come as a surprise, then, that the American Army has been the first major organisation in Britain to capitulate. The 12,000 US military personnel based in the UK have been banned from going within the M25, London's orbital motorway.


and it's just been lifted ;) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4673987.stm
The Commander of US Forces in Europe, General James L. Jones, based at Mons in Belgium, said in a statement: "[We have] lifted all travel restrictions for US personnel stationed in the United Kingdom.

"While all personnel are encouraged to be vigilant, we cannot allow ourselves to be intimidated by the acts of terrorists. All US personnel are encouraged to continue with their normal routine."


it may just have been a prudent instruction issued at the time picked up on by the media, but I'm sure the US bashers will have a field day with it anyway, some of them certainly were this morning.