While it's an absolute tragedy (also a tragedy is the fact that the explosion created tremendous levels of spookium particles, the greatest single component of the terror molecule) that so many people died and were injured in the London bombings - and let's get this straight; while civilian casualties are a reality of modern war, this is nothing shy of malicious cowardice - I have to wonder about the target. For one thing, London is not the prime target - Washington, D.C., New York City, Boston... major US cities would be far better targets. After all, at this point the UK is virtually a province of the United States (which is historical irony for you) rather than an ally; and in any case the driving force for the so-called War On Terror (which, much like the Soda Wars and the War On Drugs, has little to do with conventional warfare besides cool, refreshing corporate sponsors) is the United States. If somehow we could be ousted from these efforts, the whole thing would simply collapse.
Then there's the fact that the G8 Summit was taking place only a few hundred miles away. While I'm sure that security must have been tight, it would have made a
much better target than any city. Kill all of these world leaders at once, and I suspect we'd be seeing a stronger response among people than we currently are - namely, abject apathy. But we can probably rule that out as a realistic target for sheerly practical reasons. Blowing up a bus and some trains would be way easier than penetrating that security. Were I a terrorist, I could probably manage to blow up a bus or a train. I probably could not even begin to figure out whatever security was around the G8 Summit.
But I think that's kind of the point. Theoretically our terrorist foes are all around us, basically standing over us while we sleep with a packet of anthrax and maybe a copy of the Koran prominently displayed in order to make clear that our enemies Are Not Christians. Why aren't there more of these things in the US? All things considered, it probably would not be that difficult to sneak a bomb or a gun onto a plane, train, or automobile, especially if one happened to own the automobile in question. I know that we have these intensive thirty-minute training courses for our police to help them stop any terror molecules from invading our localities, but still. Our protection is not one hundred percent. I doubt it's even ninety percent. Which suggests that, since there has not been, to my knowledge, even ONE terrorist attack in the United States in four years, the efforts simply aren't being made to COMMIT these acts.
Now, I don't like Bush. I don't like his style or his administration, and I'll be happy in 2008 when somebody else comes in to office; unless that somebody is Rick Santorum in which case I will destroy the planet. And anybody who can't fathom why clearly has no idea who either I am, or who Rick Santorum is. And since R-Santy has "a frothing discharge of feces and lube which is formed by anal sex" named after him, I can't imagine anybody does not know who he is. But I'm not part of that sect of people who believe that there's a Massive Conspiracy afoot. I think the government has lots of secrets, and I think that there are plenty of conspiracies; but these are essentially harmless other than the fact that they completely hamstring correct functioning of democracy (an outdated value we've hardly noticed for two hundred years anyway). That said, I don't believe, at this point, that one of those copious numbers of conspiracies is some sort of arch-villainy designed to keep us angry at terror.
In any case, the government is pretty transparent about its attempts to maintain the interest of a largely-apathetic public.
With all of that in mind, the London civilian population circa Thursday was the perfect target if one wanted to keep us in the game. Yes, something like fifty people died and 700 were injured. But nothing crucial was affected. Popular support is if anything higher - the UK has suffered an attack, basically, for being our ally, and that really puts our national honor on the line here. But nobody "important" was hurt, no serious infrastructure, and those who have lost loved ones in these attacks are probably more prone to call for blood than surrender. Britishers have historically proven themselves to be tough as nails. Plus, there's a strong chance of a cozy feeling between not just our two governments but our two peoples; this morning I was planning on writing a more hawkish post on the subject in defense of the British who have stood by us and now have suffered this calamity. I still support the central idea there - to support our friends - but I'm more suspect as to the nature of this attack. It just seems awfully convenient to me.
