Yellow Alert

Please can someone explain the purpose of US Attorney General John Ashcroft's press conference today warning - yet again - that al-Qaeda is poised for an imminent attack on America?

Mr Ashcroft, together with FBI chief Robert Mueller, said there was intelligence about a plot, but this did not indicate the date, time, nor method of a possible attack.

Mr Mueller said 4 July celebrations, the Democratic and Republican party conventions, and the presidential elections in November could be at risk.

You don't say.

With that level of precision, how does the US Government expect Americans to respond? Cancel their holiday plans? Stock up with duct tape? Take another route to work that doesn't go past that chemical plant?

It seems to me that there are only two possible aims: to be able to say "we told you so" if another atrocity were to happen, and to sow fear among the American public, to make them more likely to go along with the administration's latest policies. It's the same rationale that lurks behind the ridiculous colour-coded terror alert level.

Of course, you might also ask why, if George Bush's policies have been so effective at fighting terrorism, there still exist all these threats to be warned against.

Comments

[David on 27.05.04 at 08:42]

Here here! Lets get america worried about domestic issues, that way they forget their country's atrocious foriegn policies.......

[Tom Bridge on 27.05.04 at 11:30]

Gotta love the fear-mongering that our government has engaged in post-9/11. I think the "We Told You So" is probably the most likely of the situations, working to promote awareness, while trying to avoid compromising the intelligence that they already have regarding whatever plans live in the hearts of those that wish us harm.

Pres. Bush's policies regarding fighting domestic terrorism haven't really been tested yet. Since 9/11 there have no attacks within the bounds of the United States, there's been nothing to test them ON.

This doesn't change the fact that Radical Islam has made their goal the downfall of the West, beginning with the United States. These are people we cannot negotiate with, but must instead stamp out like a pestilence.

[Calvin on 27.05.04 at 14:34]

I'm no foreign policy expert but I know broken when I see it. I think a far better approach for the Bushies would be to stop ignoring the fact that US foreign policy is the sole reason that extreme groups like Al Quaeda have any roots. Imagine for a second, if the US had taken the $50 billion or whatever spent for this "war of choice" in Iraq to create a solvent, stable and free Palestine. Hell, for that much money the US could likely just buy out the illegal Israeli settlements and create new ones in Israel. Imagine the legs a statement like that could have in the Islamic world. But maybe I'm naive in thinking the administration actually cares about Arabs.

I also think it ironic that the people to benefit most from an attack on US soil would be the Bushies. I'm not suggesting they'd "let one through" but it is ironic.

[Tom Bridge on 27.05.04 at 21:26]

Calvin, Islamic Radicals are a plague on our society whether or not you agree with the foreign policy of the United States.

Besides, it's not like they just cropped up in 2001 when Bush took office, they've been around for decades. As for Palestine? There's no sense negotiating with them when it's clear that even Arafat doesn't want resolution there.

[Calvin on 27.05.04 at 22:58]

Fanatics of any type are no good for a healthy, balanced and tolerant society, whether they are our fanatics or their fanatics. Maybe the Bushies aren't fanatics, but they are certainly misguided if they truly believe that "Stick, stick and more stick!" is how to win this "war on terrorism" (that is really a "war on ideology"). And by "win" I mean convince a large number of people all over the world (and not just Arabs) to not hate the US. I think making a credible attempt at a moral foreign policy would be a good start to re-establishing moral standing in the world and Arab communities. But like I said, I'm no expert.

They want to win hearts and minds in Iraq, do they? Holding the UN hostage in return for immunity from the international courts doesn't win hearts and minds. Vetoing security council resolutions condemning Israeli terrorism doesn't win hearts and minds. I think they need to go further than just abstaining. Iraq was messed up before, but it wasn't broken. The Israeli/Palestinian situation is broken and is arguably cheaper, easier and more productive to fix. I think they should've started there. Yeah, Arafat probably isn't the best person to speak for the Palestinian people. But between the IDF destruction iniative and the Likud party being pretty ridiculous about their land claims and refusal of the Palestinian right of return, it is probably wrong to believe he stop it all.

PS.

Two things I'd like to fix from my earlier post. I don't think the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza are technically "illegal", but they aren't helpful and should probably be removed.

I'm not fan of the Christian Science Monitor, but they quote estimates for the war "$100 billion and $200 billion - again about 1 to 2 percent of [US] GDP." CNN also reports that war spending for the US is looking to be budgeted at $50 billion next year.

That is possibly $200,000,000,000 USD. That is a lot of coin.

Oh yeah, Go Flames!! Sorry, playoffs are on.

[Tom Bridge on 28.05.04 at 01:03]

at least we agree on the Hockey playoffs!

[The Limey on 28.05.04 at 09:11]

On Yasser Arafat, it amuses me that despite the fact that he's the democratically elected leader of the Palestinians, the Americans refuse to negotiate with him. Yet at the same time, they claim that democracy is what's needed in Iraq, and the solution to all the Middle East's problems. There's a disconnect there somewhere.

[Calvin on 28.05.04 at 10:36]

Here is a quote from the story Why Al Quaeda Thrives at Time.com this morning:

"The same day the President spoke, the prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies released its annual survey that found, among other things, that far from dealing a blow to al-Qaeda and making the U.S. and its allies safer, the Iraq invasion has in fact substantially strengthened bin Laden's network and increased the danger of attacks in the West. ... The consensus among security analysts is that the key to eliminating al-Qaeda as a threat is to transform the permissive political environment in which it operates in the Muslim world. Instead, the opposite has occurred — Muslim anger at the U.S. has reached an all-time high and continues to grow, driven by outrage at U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by Israel's actions against the Palestinians."

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,642825,00.html?cnn=yes

I got delayed for 5 hours connecting in Toronto just before Christmas this year and hit up the book store. I picked up a book by Noam Chomsky while there that gives a well reasoned argument on why US foreign policy may destroy the world as we know it. What I liked most is that he didn't pull any punches and attached Republican and Democratic presidents will failed policies all the same. Anyways, it's a good read.

Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance
ISBN 0-8050-7400-7

[Lizardfish on 28.05.04 at 14:57]

Noam Chomsky is one of my favorite political writers. You can get a lot of his stuff online at Znet

http://www.zmag.org/chomskyarchive.htm

I try to get a lot of right wing Iraq war supporters to read Chomsky's essays and interviews. However, if you really want to belive that the US went to Iraq to free the Iraqis and liberate the world from terror, not even ol Noam can convince you otherwise.

[Lizardfish on 28.05.04 at 15:02]

Good point there Phil about democratic leaders.

[Tom Bridge on 28.05.04 at 17:00]

Personally, I'm more than a little bit sick of the "it's your fault you got bombed" arugment that the rest of the world seems to be spouting. There is No Excuse for flying planes into our buildings, or blowing up civilians. None. Our response has been pretty measured. Instead of just paving over the Middle East, we struck at Afghanistan where the Al Qaeda training camps were, and at Iraq.

I'm not going to justify the Iraq war. Our justifications there have turned into a mangled web of transgressions that the President and his cabinet will answer for in November. However, a change in government will not absolve us of responsibility in Iraq. We're working hard over there to come up with a new government and we're actually getting somewhere.

I want us to finish the transformation in Iraq and begin to work on the other countries in the region on reforming their theocratic dictatorships.

Violence should be a last resort, but when someone is shouting "it's us or you" sometimes it has to be them, and NOT us.

[Calvin on 28.05.04 at 20:03]

Tom,

Bear in mind that I am not defending the terrorists. I'm just saying that it isn't as cut and dry as "They are the bad guys cause they attacked us." While the attacks are unjustified, the US isn't innocent by any means. It is well documented that the US regularly commits acts that are more than a little sketchy. The US definition of terrosim is very similar to the British government's definition:

"Terrorism is the use, or threat, of action which is violent, damaging or disrupting, and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public and is for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, or ideological cause."

[By the way, counter-terrorism has essentially the same spirit, if not definition.]

According to that definition and the stance of the International Court of Justice, the UN Security Council and mainstream political scientists, the US is actually the leading terrorist state. This was also true before 9/11, before the USS Cole attack and the embassy bombings. Many Americans dismiss this as inconsequential, but to the rest of the world it matters much. Like Lizardfish, I also urge everyone I know to read some of Chomsky. Its a good read and at the very least it'll give you another perspective on the matter.

[The Limey on 31.05.04 at 07:58]

Tom

"I want us to finish the transformation in Iraq and begin to work on the other countries in the region on reforming their theocratic dictatorships."

Why? The way I see it, the only justifiable reasons for US intervention in another country's affairs are

1. That country has just attacked you or is sheltering those who have (e.g. Afghanistan).

2. That country is engaging in genocide against its own people (e.g. Kosovo)

3. There's solid proof that that country is preparing an imminent attack against you.

Rampaging around the world changing regimes willy-nilly which the US doesn't like isn't self-defence and cannot be justified by 9/11. It can't even be justified by spurious claims of liberating an oppressed people, which the administration resorted to when WMD failed to turn up in Iraq - if the US is so keen on that, why haven't they got involved in the situation in Zimbabwe, for example?

The administration needs to learn its lesson from Iraq - a recent study found the American action that has spurred on al-Qaeda, not damaged it.

[Rich on 31.05.04 at 13:21]

Hmm...other Bermudians that read Chomsky! Yay!

[susan on 31.05.04 at 16:49]

just a short anecdote for you to lighten the mood. Less than a week following 9/11 i had to fly to my grandmother's funeral. i found myself assigned to a seat right next to a very charming man of arab descent. i must have gotten some kind of look on my face because he said "not to worry, if i blow up the plane you'll be no safer three rows back." I was so embarassed.

[hank on 01.06.04 at 00:24]

Yellow Alert

I'd like to offer another reason for the yellow alert and the warnings.

To actually to warn people.

By people I mean law enforcement and the average citizen. If the FBI or CIA were to issue a law enforcement only warning, it would be in the hands of the media before it got to the local police department. Then the police department would be calling wondering what was going on. Therefore, the FBI/CIA issue an across the board warning with all the information that is unclassified. Chances are great that local law enforcement will run across one of the people wanted for questioning or see something before the FBI/CIA actually does.

In addition, one of the greatest assets that the US has is an informed (perhaps even snoopy) populace. Granted we will get 100 terrible tips for every good one, but we do get good ones.

I think the sytem has a lot of flaws, but it is better that sitting on our hands.

[Tom Bridge on 01.06.04 at 09:41]

I've publicly said as much about the dictatorship under Mugabe, and that we need to be involved.

As for getting involved "willy nilly" I certainly don't think Iraq/Afghanistan are willy nilly. Willy Nilly would be Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Zimbabwe, Iran, North Korea, etc.

We're not in this to become a colonial power, we're in this for global security. Islamic Radicals as Terrorists is the threat that we're trying to stamp out.

[Calvin on 01.06.04 at 12:20]

Tom,

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the most interesting point of your last post to me was the fact that the Palestian/Israeli conflict was not brought up in your "willy nilly" scenario. The mere fact that the US refuses to take action to justly settle that lengthy dispute is what drives Islamic militancy.

Somewhat on a tangent, I'm not sure if anyone reads the Washington Post here, but the Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has an op-ed in today's paper named "A Plea for Enlightened Moderation" that might be worth a read. It's all about persepctive.

Hank,

The major problem I see with the terror alert system is that it has been (purposely or coincidently, I'm not sure) designed to be the perfect political whip. If ever there was a way to inject an ounce of fear into the masses and get them "on board" with national or foreign policy it was this contraption. What's the purpose of the "blue" and "green" levels? I got $2 that says they never get to use either of them.

[Tom Bridge on 01.06.04 at 14:07]

Calvin, it's not for lack of trying. We've asked the Israelis if we can provide aid. They have a competent military, and have not said yes. We've tried to put a diplomatic end to it, and so far, the best we can do is lead the horse to water.

We can't make it drink.

Truth is, neither party is really ready to settle this one. If we go in, guns ablazing, there will be enough problems to make Iraq look like camping.

[David on 01.06.04 at 18:26]

What a load of rubbish. I'm sorry Tom do you have any idea how the Palestinians are suffering? And no you can't justify it no matter how fanatical some of there people are? The bottom line is that there are many many more innocent palestinians dying then israelis. Israel relies heavily on american support in lots of ways. America definitely does have the power to push things in the right direction but they don't use it cos its now low priority, when previously your liar president said it was. What aid are you talking about. Yes of course their military is competent, jesus the iraqui army would be competent enough to beat palestine, with or without WMDs. It amazes me how you americans like your president with all the cock ups he makes time and time again. You listened to Bill Hicks? Theres a man who got it right 10 years ago and would stand the test of time even now.