The politics of fear

A lot has been written about the Republican ads in Iowa in New Hampshire, which begin, "some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists." I don't really have much to add about that line; I think you all can guess what my reaction was. But this line, via Maureen Dowd's column today, was new to me:

" 'It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known," Mr. Bush says, in a State of the Union clip."

I don't usually have much patience for Dowd, but she has it right. This is fear-mongering for no good purpose. Experts generally agree that biological and chemical weapons kill people in horrible ways but are not any better than conventional weapons at killing large numbers of people (if it's not done right, they're probably worse). So one vial or one canister would not be very likely to bring a worse day of horror than 9/11. Nuclear weapons are a different story, but there was no serious nuclear threat from Iraq in the short or medium term, and we knew it.

And of course, it seems increasingly clear that Iraq had no biological or chemical weapons either.

They have a history of this sort of thing.

Beginning May 16 or 17 of 2002, there were a few disclosures about possible warning signs to 9/11 that might have been missed--particularly an August 6 presidential briefing about possible Al Qaeda hijackings. People began to criticize Bush's foreign policy, which had not really happened since September 10.

The following week:

New York Times, 5/19/02, A1:

"American intelligence agencies have intercepted a vague yet troubling series of communications among Al Qaeda operatives over the last few months indicating that the terrorist organization is trying to carry out an operation as big as the Sept. 11 attacks or bigger, according to intelligence and law enforcement officials.

But just as last summer's threats left counterterrorism analysts guessing about Al Qaeda's intentions, and believing that the attack might be carried out overseas, the new interceptions are so general that they have left President Bush and his counterterrorism team in the dark about the time, place or method of what some officials refer to as a second-wave attack. As a result, the government is essentially limited to taking broad defensive measures.

"It's again not specific -- not specific as to time, not specific as to place," one senior administration official said.

The officials compared the intercepted messages, which they described as cryptic and ambiguous, with the pattern of those picked up last spring and early summer, when Qaeda operatives were also overheard talking about a big operation. Those signals were among the evidence that intelligence agencies presented to President Bush in August about the possibility of an imminent attack against the United States."

Washington Post, 5/20/02, A1:

"Vice President Cheney starkly laid out the administration's fear about another terrorist attack yesterday, warning that a strike is "almost certain" and "could happen tomorrow, it could happen next week, it could happen next year."

Cheney and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said on network talk shows that they had no information about an imminent attack. But they said the government is receiving an increasing number of troubling intelligence reports, partly as a result of the new cooperation with other governments after the Sept. 11 attacks."

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 5/21/02, Local, p. A1:

"In an interview yesterday, the director of homeland security added his voice to the Bush administration figures cautioning against second-guessing over the nation's pre-9/11 alertness. He also dismissed criticism of his own performance in helping to shape a new anti-terror infrastructure.

"It's not a question of if they will strike us again; I don't think it's a question of if, it's a question of when," Ridge said moments after delivering the commencement address at Carnegie Mellon University."

NY Times, 5/21/02, p. A1:

"The director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation warned today that suicide bombings like those that have left hundreds dead in Israel are "inevitable" on American soil.

"I think we will see that in the future -- I think it's inevitable," said the director, Robert S. Mueller III, whose agency is under siege by critics in Congress and elsewhere who contend that the bureau failed to follow up on clues that might have prevented the Sept. 11 terrorism attacks."

Baltimore Sun, 5/22/02, p. A1:

"In still another blunt warning from the Bush administration, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday that terrorists "inevitably" will obtain chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and try to use them against Americans.

"We have to recognize that terrorist networks have relationships with terrorist states that have weapons of mass destruction and that they inevitably are going to get their hands on them, and they would not hesitate one minute in using them," Rumsfeld told a congressional panel."

The Democrats didn't cover themselves in glory that week either--suddenly Dick Gephardt rushed on TV asking "what did the President know, and when did he know it?". But he at least left the rest of us out of it.

I tried to give Bush the benefit of the doubt after 9/11. I desparately wanted to trust our President at a time like that, and he made some good speeches, was great with the firefighters, did a good job in Afghanistan, did not start bombing the middle east back to the stone age as I feared he would.

That week was when I stopped trusting him. Rumsfeld's warning in particular gave me nightmares for three days, and I knew I wasn't the only one--and it seemed clearly motivated by political gain.

Comments

[Arc]

I pretty much agree with anyone who says that eventually terrorists will use WMDs (if you count the anthrax mail and that Japanese cult they already have). There are thousands of people in the world capable of manufacturing WMDs. For chem and bio weapons it really only takes a little cash, an isolated location, time and knowledge. There is no need for much expensive or hard to acquire equipment. One can find most of the interesting pathogens in the people who suffer from them in the third world (every year many people working with sheep contract anthrax, along with many of the other bioweapons pathogens).

Nukes are a different story, but outside of the actual nuclear material and a few key parts the know-how to make a nuclear weapon is available to anyone with a PhD in physics or engineering. If you talk dirty bombs then the sky is the limit. There are literally thousands of sites scattered over the former USSR that have nuclear material that is usable for dirty bombs (there was a good frontline on this in the last year).

The good thing about WMDs (from the terrorist objective) is the psychological aspect of the weapons. Just look at how freaked out people got over the anthrax mail. Just imagine a sustained attack or sustained contamination with a dirty bomb, people will loose it.

[Katherine]

You're probably right. But if the main point of these weapons for terrorists is the fear they create, why should our government help?

[Arc]

I would rather let people be informed but scared about the danger of the situation than blissfully ignorant. This fear has driven many to question whether the government it doing enough, which its not.

I would have a problem with emphasizing the danger if it was irrational or without basis, but I believe the danger is real and more should be done. We could start by boosting the help we are giving the Russians to clean up their giant mess.

[James Casey]

"I don't really have much to add about that line; I think you all can guess what my reaction was."

One of the interesting things about this blog is not looking to see who's written it before reading. The line above is interpreted very differently according to author.

I suppose there are a few people who disagree with the whole 'war on terror'. There are probably some who think Afghanistan was wrong. And of course such an advert doesn't say it's the majority, but because 'some' is such a vague term, the mere mention of the (more or less irrelevant) numbers is that people viewing the advert assume that if you're saying something, it must be important.

[otmar]

According to last year's experience, you can be very effective in terrorizing a population with just one sniper rifle. I sometimes wonder why the terrorists haven't taken that route yet; if you don't act as dumb as the pair from last year and restrict yourself to a small area, you should be able to keep the gig going for months.

What would it take? Two dedicated persons (not even dedicated enough for suicides), some markmanship training, a gun and ammo, a car (or more for safety), and funds for living.

If you want to instill fear, a trickle of deaths might be more effective than one single attack with lots of casualities.

Why bother with WMDs?

[James Casey]

otmar, I wonder if that would be difficult to do, because a lot of these people seem to be involved because of the blaze of glory thing; and hiding and picking people off from a distance would seem a bit inglorious and cowardly to them.

Furthermore, it probably isn't as good a recruitment advert as a big bomb is...

[Katherine]

James, it's technically accurate but it's a campaign ad, airing in the early primary states; they're aiming at the democratic candidates, not a few protestors.

Al Qaeda seems to like spectacular, simultaneous attacks, I think. God knows they probably have at least one person in the U.S. who would be willing to do a suicide bombing in a mall, but that doesn't seem to be bin Laden's style. (probably not many, or it would've happened.)

[Edward]

Fearmongering is a shameful exercise for any leader, let alone an American president.

The only weapons the 9/11 hijackers had were box cutters and hatred. Talk about mushroom clouds and vials of viruses is manipulative and irresponsible. Saying that you want the public well informed is also irresponsible unless you can actually give them useful information. What we get instead is a laughable color chart that tells us little to nothing.

[Katherine]

It's also basically a two color chart, not a five color one--to go to red would cause panic; to go to blue or green would leave them too vulnerable if an attack occurs.

Think of how you'd react if your family doctor acted this way. "What do you mean, you think you might see another doctor? Let me list the mysterious illnesses he'll overlook that you can do nothing to stop, and may kill you in your sleep."

[Edward]

Let me list the mysterious illnesses he'll overlook that you can do nothing to stop, and may kill you in your sleep.

Exactly. That's all they're saying. It's CYA supreme and manipulative as hell.

Where's the leadership?

[Katherine]

two follow ups:

1. the state of the union clip is digitally altered:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/25/politics/25ADS.html

2. two Slate writers light into the ad here:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2091666/

William Saletan: "Every salient premise in the ad is false. Our national security wasn't in jeopardy. Our pre-emptive attack turned out not to be warranted self-defense. The regime Bush ousted wasn't particularly supportive of the terrorists who struck us, and leading Democrats who opposed the war did so for reasons precisely contrary to the reasons the ad attributes to them. Call the White House and the RNC now. Tell them to end the President's policy of lying about Iraq."

Jacob Weisberg: "I thought Bush would do this. I thought he'd run ugly, dishonest ads questioning the patriotism of his Democratic opponents. That's what Republicans do in campaigns (see Saxby Chambliss vs. Max Cleland, 2002). That's what the Bushes do when they're running for President (George H.W. Bush vs. Michael Dukakis, 1988). But I didn't think Bush would run red-baiting ads a year ahead of the election, before a single vote had been cast for any Democratic candidate."