As I write this, the casualty rate in the London terrorist attacks — 40 dead, over 300 wounded — is rising. This synchronized strike, several blasts at once, is being claimed by a group that calls itself “Secret Organization — al-Qaeda in Europe.” The attacks, according to this shadowy group, were made “in response to the massacres Britain committed in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
So much for the assertion, made often by President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, that the Anglo-American invasion of the Middle East has made the West safer. As Blair put it:
“Suppose the terrorists repeated September 11th or worse. Suppose they got hold of a chemical or biological or nuclear dirty bomb; and if they could, they would. What then? And if it is the threat of the 21st century, Britain should be in there helping confront it, not because we are America’s poodle, but because dealing with it will make Britain safer.”
Now Britain is paying price of poodle-ism.
The question is posed pointblank: are the people of the UK prepared to accept a war against their own territory on account of their support for America’s imperial ambitions? I would venture that the answer is a flat “No.”
This also puts the lie to the Bushian rhetoric of “We’re fighting them in the streets of Baghdad so we don’t have to fight them in the streets of [fill in name of a Western city].” The truth is that this war has made us less safe, it is bringing the war home to us. We are fighting them in Iraq — and on the streets of London. And if they are stalemating us in the former, and beating us in the latter — where is the “victory” in that?
Here is a city that has more surveillence cameras per city block than any city on earth — all to no avail. Right now I am watching Steve Emerson, the terrorism “expert,” say on MSNBC that those cameras will enable the London authorities to find out who the perpetrators are, but what exactly is the value of that? We know it was terrorist nut-balls, jihadis who care not one whit for human decency or honor, and do not hesitate to strike out at innocents in their global war on the West. The cameras were sold as a preventive measure — the Brits were supposedly selling the last remnants of their liberties for the promise of safety. But there is no safety in this new world that our leaders are building for us.
A brazen, horrific barbaric attack that took place during London’s rush hour — three explosions at once, perhaps one of them a suicide bomber — is turning the whole world into Tel Aviv. In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, New Republic editor declared that “We are all Israelis now.”
This is now indubitably true. The question is: is this what we want?
Some will say that we have no choice, but that is nonsense. The attack came in direct retaliation for what the terrorists’ claim of responsibility called the “massacres” in Iraq. The current war in Iraq is a war of choice, not of necessity, and we should be very clear: we have chosen this path, or our leaders have. Now the question arises: is it too late to turn back?
John McCain is the first American politician to do his Churchill imitation on MSNBC. Asked the meaning of all this, the lesson of Terror Thursday, he answers:
“It means that the struggle goes on, it’s a tough fight, and as sad as we are … we understand the nature of this cruel and despicable enemey. We have to fight and we have to win.”
“Solidarity,” “strength,” “commitment” — more mock-heroic blather from the Arizona Blusterer. But when asked what the U.S. and Britain can do to prevent these attacks, his answer is less Churchchillian: we must “do exactly what we are doing.”
Does it matter that “exactly what we are doing” isn’t working? Not to McCain, the most bloodthirsty of all the warmongers on either side of the Atlantic. We are willing to bet, however, that it matters to the Brits, who are described by McCain (again in Churchchillian terms) as “stoic.” However, online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes the philosophy of Stoicism as more than merely a penchant for heroics:
“The later Stoics of Roman Imperial times, Seneca and Epictetus, emphasise the doctrines (already central to the early Stoics’ teachings) that the sage is utterly immune to misfortune and that virtue is sufficient for happiness. Our phrase ‘stoic calm’ perhaps encapsulates the general drift of these claims. It does not, however, hint at the even more radical ethical views which the Stoics defended, e.g. that only the sage is free while all others are slaves or that all those who are morally vicious are equally so. Though it seems clear that some Stoics took a kind of perverse joy in advocating views which seem so at odds with common sense.”
McCain took the opportunity, I’ll note, to call for unspecified “sacrifice” on the part of the American people — and, carrying the Stoic parallel further, calling for the continuation of policies — the war in Iraq, the crackdown on civil liberties, the worldwide crusade to impose “democracy” on recalcitrant peoples — so at odds with common sense.