The Laughing Wolf

When The Next Attack Occurs

I’ve said it before, and I am not alone in saying it, but the fact is that the U.S. is going to get hit again by terrorists. The only questions that exist are when and what type of attack?

I see some obvious times to consider, such as July 4 or a week before the elections, and have given some thought to some sort of dead pool-type thing. Yet, while tempting, it would tend to draw away from the more important questions and issues that will result from said attack.

Let’s face it, there will be one and most likely there will be more than one unless and until we confront the real enemies and deal with them. Our ability to do this is being tested in Iraq and right now the reviews are mixed. Not because of the insurgency, but because of the political infighting and failure of various Alliance and U.S. factions to set aside their own ideological shibboleths and deal with the real issues. How we face that challenge is even more important than how we deal with fair weather friends and outside-orchestrated “uprisings.”

The enemy has first hand empirical evidence that the tried and true methods work. Bombs in Spain cause the Spanish politicians (not military) to run like spooked bunnies. They get other allies to say stupid things so that their military can be attacked and then withdrawn. They see Old Europe ready to roll over and present its belly to them in exchange for the use of lubricant and payoffs to various individuals and concerns. Business is business, after all. They see U.S. political opposition ready to follow suit with Europe and failed appeasement, and they see the Old Media ready, willing, eager and able to do their propaganda for them. In short, they have every expectation that attacks will have the same effect here as they did in Spain and elsewhere.

They are wrong, but that will not stop the attack(s).

The important questions after the attacks will be:

Why? No, not just the fact that they are sworn to destroy all competing cultures and religions, for that is their stated long-term goal. Why then? What was the short-term aim of the operation? Why the location selected? Did it serve a strategic goal other than simply pointing out that no place is safe? Why did they use a particular methodology? Do they hope to stampede us into destroying ourselves from within through rash, freedom limiting legislation?

What? What were the full short-term goals? What response did they desire to provoke other than fear, for there are always other responses being sought beyond the obvious.

Who? Who were the real targets, for such may not be the victims at all? Consider that such events are aimed at influencing, for good or ill, certain key individuals who are in positions of power or potential positions of power. They may seek to limit the actions that can be taken by someone, by binding them in political infighting and domestic strife. They may seek to cause someone to take actions that will have a long-term benefit to them, even at the expense of short-term loss.

When? The timing is critical, for it gives leads to the answers to the questions above. There is also the fact that for a given period after such an event that the public and the politicians are going to react on a more emotional level than intellectual. There are a few who will avoid this, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Who these are and what they can do will decide much of the future. If they are venal, they will use it for short-term political or economic gain, ignoring the fact that the long-term will turn out bad. If they are not venal, then the long-term will be secured even at some expense to the short-term. In short, such individuals will live up to their obligations and do what is right rather than what is expedient or comfortable.

Now, I said above that they are wrong in their assumptions, but I did not say why. Now is the time.

They are wrong because the venal are a minority in the body politic. The ultra conservatives are a minority. The far-left and I hate Bush/anyone but Bush brigades are noisy, especially given their domination of the Old Media, but again are a minority. The core of American public opinion is fairly set and even increasing in its support for a real war on terror, to the shock and dismay of the Old Media. While an act will have short-term consequences, the long-term are unlikely to be what is desired.

The real, true, fundamental flaw in their thoughts is that they, like so many before, have held the belief that America and Americans will react like Europeans. To quote Jacob McCandles, “Not Hardly.” Despite all the propaganda thrown at them, they remain fairly solid. In the last 100 plus years, we have never reacted as would Europeans, and that cost those who bet otherwise skirmishes, battles, and wars. It has cost political careers and lucrative deals. Yes, in the short-run individuals will be venal and short sighted, but the difference is that once the long-term becomes clear, we act.

9-11 awakened a sleeping giant. There is a considerable effort being expended to put it back to sleep again, and to keep it from waking friends and neighbors. The attack, when it comes, may temporarily blind the giant, but it will guarantee that it is fully awake. Then, let enemies beware.

Bugs Bunny had it right, and summed up the American attitude towards war. We don’t want it, and will avoid it if at all possible, but there is only so much we will take. “This means war” sums it up well.

The attacks will happen. There will be terrible short-term consequences, and there is a real danger of doing ourselves harm during that time. They key to avoiding such harm is to avoid the trap, to think, to look at the questions posited above, and act upon those answers rather than in the way the enemy wants.

-30-