ࡱ> rtq9 <bjbj-<l pdddd333- / / / / / / $d  S 3"333S ddh 3dd- 3-   d GU $~ 0 " After the Horror By PAUL KRUGMAN PRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=I" INCLUDEPICTURE \d \z "http://graphics.nytimes.com/images/dropcap/i.gif" t seems almost in bad taste to talk about dollars and cents after an act of mass murder. Nonetheless, we must ask about the economic aftershocks from Tuesday's horror. These aftershocks need not be major. Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression could even do some economic good. But there are already ominous indications that some will see this tragedy not as an occasion for true national unity, but as an opportunity for political profiteering. About the direct economic impact: The nation's productive base has not been seriously damaged. Our economy is so huge that the scenes of destruction, awesome as they are, are only a pinprick. The World Trade Center contained 12 million square feet of office space; that's out of 375 million square feet in Manhattan alone, and 3.5 billion in the United States as a whole. Nobody has a dollar figure for the damage yet, but I would be surprised if the loss is more than 0.1 percent of U.S. wealth comparable to the material effects of a major earthquake or hurricane. The wild card here is confidence. But the confidence that matters in this case has little to do with general peace of mind. If people rush out to buy bottled water and canned goods, that will actually boost the economy. For a few weeks horrified Americans may be in no mood to buy anything but necessities. But once the shock has passed it's hard to believe that consumer spending will be much affected. Will investors flee stocks and corporate bonds for safer assets? Such a reaction wouldn't make much sense after all, terrorists are not going to blow up the S.&P. 500. True, markets do sometimes react irrationally, and some foreign markets plunged after the attack. Since then, however, they have stabilized. On the whole it's just as well that our own markets have stayed closed for a few days, giving investors time to calm down; the administration was wrong to put pressure on stock markets to reopen right away. By the time the markets do reopen, the worst panic will probably be behind us. So the direct economic impact of the attacks will probably not be that bad. And there will, potentially, be two favorable effects. First, the driving force behind the economic slowdown has been a plunge in business investment. Now, all of a sudden, we need some new office buildings. As I've already indicated, the destruction isn't big compared with the economy, but rebuilding will generate at least some increase in business spending. Second, the attack opens the door to some sensible recession-fighting measures. For the last few weeks there has been a heated debate among liberals over whether to advocate the classic Keynesian response to economic slowdown, a temporary burst of public spending. There were plausible economic arguments in favor of such a move, but it was questionable whether Congress could agree on how to spend the money in time to be of any use and there was also the certainty that conservatives would refuse to accept any such move unless it were tied to another round of irresponsible long- term tax cuts. Now it seems that we will indeed get a quick burst of public spending, however tragic the reasons. Now for the bad news. After the attacks, I found myself wondering whether some politicians would try to exploit the horror to push their usual partisan agendas. Then I chided myself for such an uncharitable thought. But it seems you can't be too cynical; sure enough, the push is already on to sell tax breaks for corporations and a cut in the capital gains tax as a response to terrorism. One hopes that the White House will distance itself from this disgraceful opportunism, that it will deliver the bipartisanship it originally promised. But initial indications are not good: the administration developed its request for emergency funding in consultation with Congressional Republicans full stop. A Democratic contact says that his party received "no consultation, no collaboration, virtually no information." I didn't want to mention this, but now is the time to draw the line. This tragedy will only be magnified if it is exploited for political gain. Politicians who wrap themselves in the flag while relentlessly pursuing their usual partisan agenda are not true patriots, and history will not forgive them. LE IDEE Per l'Occidente finita la grande illusione di FREDERICK FORSYTH  Due cose sono accadute marted. Che siano accadute a New York e a Washington era probabilmente inevitabile, se non altro per l'effetto che hanno avuto in quelle due citt, diverso da quello che avrebbero avuto se fossero accadute a Londra, Parigi, Berlino o Roma. Innanzitutto, si verificato un momento determinante. Questi momenti sono rari nel progredire dell'uomo lungo i secoli, e in certe occasioni non sono stati nemmeno riconosciuti quando si sono verificati. Un momento determinante un evento prima del quale le cose stavano in un certo modo, per il bene o per il male, per il peggio, ma cos stavano le cose. Dopo quel momento niente sar mai come prima. Dopo quel momento si inizia, per dirla con Hegel, "un nuovo modo" (Eine neue Art). Di questi momenti ce ne sono stati due nell'arco della mia vita, prima di questa settimana. Poco prima delle 5 del mattino del primo settembre 1939, i carri armati tedeschi attraversavano la frontiera polacca. La Seconda Guerra Mondiale era cominciata. Quando fin, il mondo dovette essere ridisegnato. All'incirca verso la stessa ora di una mattina del giugno 1948, i carri armati russi uscivano dai boschi circostanti e bloccavano i tre corridoi stabiliti che dalla Germania Occidentale portavano a Berlino Ovest, violando il Patto tra le Quattro Potenze. La Guerra Fredda era cominciata. Ci vollero quarantatr anni fino al crollo finale del Comunismo Sovietico soltanto dieci anni fa. La seconda cosa accaduta marted la fine della auto-illusione. Nel corso degli anni Trenta, l'alleanza franco-britannica tent di auto-illudersi sul fatto che Hitler non fosse in realt un uomo pericoloso, non veramente determinato a fare la guerra per conquistare la supremazia nel continente. Tra il 1945 e il 1948, l'Occidente tent d'illudersi sul fatto che l'URSS di Stalin non fosse veramente una dittatura genocida, ma ancora un amico e alleato dell'Occidente. Negli ultimi quarant'anni l'Occidente democratico/capitalistico ha tentato di convincersi che poteva convivere con un certo livello permanente di terrorismo di grado inferiore, un fastidio brutale e a volte sanguinoso, tuttavia non intrinsecamente pericoloso. Questa l'illusione che ora deve finire, mentre entriamo nella seconda Guerra Fredda. Il terrorismo, l'imposizione di ubbidienza verso una ridotta minoranza fanatica per mezzo della paura di massa il nuovo nemico globale. In verit lo gi da anni; ma fino a marted semplicemente non eravamo disposti ad accettarlo. Saranno un migliaio gli studi sul terrorismo, ma fondamentalmente il terrorismo di quattro tipi. Nazionale (o territoriale): la lotta per unificare una paese diviso (Irlanda) o per creare un nuovo Stato a partire da un'enclave (baschi, Tigri Tamil). Limitato a una questione specifica: gli estremisti di movimenti come il Fronte di Liberazione Animale, finora limitatisi a tattiche di "disturbo" di bassa portata. Questo il motivo per cui non sono colpiti da "sanzioni estreme". Politico: occasionalmente di destra (la bomba alla ferrovia a Bologna o gli attacchi neo-nazisti contro gli stranieri) ma nel passato principalmente di sinistra. La - un tempo temuta - banda Baader-Meinhof, Rote Armee Fraktion, le Brigate Rosse, Renko Sekkigun (Giappone), le Cellules Comunistes Combattentes (Belgio), Action Directe (Francia), ecc. Tutte ora distrutte e per un motivo. Mao Tse-Tung aveva ragione. La guerriglia deve essere in grado di muoversi nella societ senza essere vista, come un pesce che nuota nel mare. L'azione determinata della autorit in Germania e in Italia hanno finalmente spezzato questi estremisti scoprendo chi erano, dove vivevano, e facendoli poi scomparire dal quadro generale. Avevano compiuto atti di sabotaggio, degli omicidi, ma non hanno mai veramente minacciato lo Stato. Pi duri sono i terroristi dell'Eta basco e dell'Ira irlandese. Possono confondersi in ghetti che li appoggiano e dove ogni mano gli sar tesa. Ma non commettono suicidi. Ma pi temibili di tutti sono i terroristi che provengono dal fanatismo religioso. Per loro non c' logica, non c' appello, non c' concessione che possa bastare. Tutte le grandi religioni predicano pi o meno la stessa cosa: una vita basata sulla piet, sulla compassione, sulla generosit, sull'amore per Dio, sull'amore per il vicino, l'amore per la pace. L'Islam assolutamente una di queste. Maometto non ha mai invocato l'assassinio di massa, nemmeno di infedeli. Nelle pi avanzate societ mussulmane del passato, gli ebrei, i gentili e i mussulmani vivevano in pace e in armonia nella tolleranza e nella giustizia, perch tutte e tre sono "i popoli del Libro". Ma occasionalmente tutte le grandi religioni generano un culto distorto, aberrante e mutante piegato all'odio e alla violenza. Il cristianesimo lo ha certamente fatto, ripetutamente. I giovani ebrei che hanno assassinato Itzhak Rabin sono saltati fuori da un settore dell'insegnamento religioso che abbraccia l'ultra-fanatismo. L'Islam oggi si trova sempre pi stretto nella morsa del Fondamentalismo Islamico. Alcuni autori hanno scritto che il Fondamentalismo Islamico sorge dall'esistenza d'Israele e dalla miseria dei palestinesi senza una loro terra. Non vero. Per i fondamentalisti islamici l'intera "Umma" (comunit) dell'Islam diventata corrotta, ha smarrito la strada tracciata da Allah. Tutto l'Islam dev'essere purificato, e gli ebrei e i gentili espulsi. Scegliendo soltanto i testi che gli si confanno, e persino travisando questi come faranno sempre i fanatici, gli imam del Fondamentalismo Islamico hanno prodotto colonne di giovani fanatici pronti a morire per la loro causa. In Algeria, i terroristi del Fondamentalismo Islamico massacrano interi villaggi di contadini nella loro lotta contro il governo di Algeri perch esso secolare. Non c' un ebreo e un cristiano di mezzo. Nella guerra tra Iran e Iraq, decine di migliaia di ragazzi iraniani si sono gettate sulle mine per liberare il passaggio ai loro camerati delle Guardie Rivoluzionarie. Hanno fatto cos perch uno strano vecchio fanatico a Teheran gli aveva detto che cos avrebbero raggiunto la gioia eterna in Paradiso. Questi non erano mussulmani contro ebrei, o arabi contro americani. L'Iraq ha un governo secolare. In tutto il mondo islamico i governi secolari tremano di fronte al fuoco dei fondamentalisti islamici che brucia al suo passaggio le moschee e le scuole. Alcuni tentano di domarlo dichiarandosi "Repubblica Islamica", introducendo la legge della sharia, il "burqa" che tutto copre o il "chador" per le donne. Soltanto quando i fondamentalisti sono soddisfatti, i governanti possono dormire sonni tranquilli. Perci i gruppi spuntano e proliferano: Hamas, Hezbollah, la Jihad Islamica, con alcuni, ma non tutti, che usano l'esistenza d'Israele e l'appoggio che esso ha dagli Stati Uniti come catalizzatore; un utile catalizzatore ma non sempre la motivazione principale. Osama Bin Laden non ha mosso i suoi primi passi lottando per la causa palestinese. Ricco, istruito, educato in Occidente, si avvicina agli estremi del Fondamentalismo Islamico da giovane. Quando va a combattere assieme ai Mujaheddin in Afghanistan la CIA lo considera un eroe, uno pronto a combattere e a morire nella lotta contro il comunismo. Errato. Egli combatteva contro l'invasore infedele. Durante la Guerra del Golfo mezzo milione di americani sbarca nella sua natia Arabia Saudita. Che fossero invitati da Re Fahd non era una giustificazione. Erano invasori. Quando poi si sono fermati, sono diventati occupanti. La casa reale saudita diventa traditrice, giacch l'Arabia Saudita il custode dei Luoghi Sacri. Quello il momento in cui il suo odio ardente si rivolge all'America e dieci ani pi tardi sfoga quell'odio. Che piaccia o no, l'Occidente non pu placare la situazione n arrivare a compromessi perch le domande minime del Fondamentalismo Islamico sono decisamente inaccettabili. Non ci deve essere da parte nostra disprezzo per quella grande religione che l'Islam, Non ci devono essere rappresaglie contro pacifici mussulmani. Ma non abbiamo altra scelta se non quella di rispondere. Ora i controlli draconiani negli aeroporti diventeranno forzosamente parte della nostra vita. Sceriffi del cielo su ogni volo, probabilmente. Ma questo non pu essere sufficiente. La prima risposta pu essere abbastanza semplice se tutto il mondo capitalistico/democratico accetter il fatto che l'ossessione per i diritti civili deve andare a sedersi in una fila pi indietro, se non vuole ce ci sia un altro 11 settembre. Tutti i terroristi devono essere collocati nella stessa categoria. Gli irlandesi americani non possono continuare nella loro idea che si tratta di una atrocit se Timothy McVeigh distrugge 280 vite a Oklahoma City, ma che se l'Ira fa fuori 28 civili a Omagh ci si fa una bevuta in un bar irlandese di Boston. Il terrorismo il nostro nemico collettivo e non possiamo scegliere i nostri preferiti. Non pi. Le linee ora sono state tracciate. In secondo luogo dobbiamo utilizzare il nostro immenso potere economico per isolare e rovinare gli stati che li ospitano. Dobbiamo accettare il fatto che i terroristi non possono vivere in una striscia di sabbia in mezzo al Mediterraneo o al Mar Rosso. Hanno bisogno di un posto in cui vivere, in cui mangiare, bere, dormire, tenere le loro conferenze, pianificare le loro azioni. Hanno bisogno di campi in cui addestrare i loro volontari, di documenti contraffatti per spostarsi nel mondo, di armi, Semtex, conti in banca e migliaia di altre cose che soltanto uno Stato-nazione pu fornire per permettere loro di funzionare e di fare quello che hanno fatto lo scorso marted. Dobbiamo indurire i nostri cuori e creare il concetto di Stato-reietto. Uno stato in cui nessun aereo del mondo esterno atterrer mai o vi decoller, in cui nessuna nave attraccher portando merce importata, n alcuna salper portando merce esportata. Uno stato che non avr ambasciate all'estero, n consolati, n missioni commerciali e ai cui cittadini non sar mai concesso un visto. Uno stato cui non saranno concessi prestiti dal Fmi n dalla Banca Mondiale, n sar accettata la loro presenza in qualsivoglia conferenza, finch non chieder a ogni terrorista da loro ospitato di lasciare il paese e per sempre. Potremmo fare ci? Oh s. Il potere delle sole nazioni del G7 vasto. La maggior parte degli Stati-nazione che ospitano gruppi terroristici, finanziandoli, rifornendoli, aiutandoli, hanno una classe dirigente che ha creduto finora di poter comportarsi in questo modo e di continuare a godersi comunque la buona vita. I figli a Oxford o a Cambridge, le mogli che fanno shopping a Bond Street, una nuova Mercedes quando pare e piace, viaggi in tutto il mondo su jet privati, i migliori hotel, copertura diplomatica. Ogni cosa nella vita ha un prezzo e alcuni prezzi sono semplicemente troppo alti da pagare. La maggioranza dei paesi che non sono n porti sicuri dei gruppi terroristici, n parte dell'Occidente accetterebbe ci? Certamente, se fosse chiaro che la loro inadempienza nell'assisterci significherebbe l'inclusione nel gruppo dei paesi reietti. Nelle campagne, la volpe non mai tanto vulnerabile quanto lo nel momento in cui obbligata a lasciare la tana e a tentare di correre attraverso i campi aperti. allora che pu essere cacciata e uccisa. E cos anche con i terroristi, siano essi laici o religiosi. Se l'Occidente ritiene ora che sar sufficiente la sola difesa, commetter un errore e ci saranno ancora e ancora aerei usati come bombe volanti. Non abbiamo altra scelta se non colpire in risposta. E i primi obiettivi devono essere le dozzine di Stati che hanno scelto di ospitare e di essere indulgenti con i movimenti terroristici e che hanno creduto di fare ci restando nella comunit delle nazioni. L'Occidente non ha scelta, se non quella di mettere bene in chiaro che quella possibilit finita la mattina di marted 11 settembre 2001. (traduzione di Guiomar Parada) copyright 2001 by Frederick Forsyth (14 settembre 2001) COMMENT | October 1, 2001 A Hole in the World by Jonathan Schell HYPERLINK "/directory/view.mhtml?handle=schell_jonathan"/directory/view.mhtml?handle=schell_jonathanINCLUDEPICTURE \d "/images/about.gif"HYPERLINK "/directory/view.mhtml?handle=schell_jonathan"/directory/view.mhtml?handle=schell_jonathan PRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=O" n Tuesday morning, a piece was torn out of our world. A patch of blue sky that should not have been there opened up in the New York skyline. In my neighborhood--I live eight blocks from the World Trade Center--the heavens were raining human beings. Our city was changed forever. Our country was changed forever. Our world was changed forever. It will take months merely to know what happened, far longer to feel so much grief, longer still to understand its meaning. It's already clear, however, that one aspect of the catastrophe is of supreme importance for the future: the danger of the use of weapons of mass destruction, and especially the use of nuclear weapons. This danger includes their use by a terrorist group but is by no means restricted to it. It is part of a larger danger that has been for the most part ignored since the end of the cold war. Among the small number who have been concerned with nuclear arms in recent years--they have pretty much all known one another by their first names--it was commonly heard that the world would not return its attention to this subject until a nuclear weapon was again set off somewhere in the world. Then, the tiny club said to itself, the world would awaken to its danger. Many of the ingredients of the catastrophe were obvious. The repeated suicide-homicides of the bombers in Israel made it obvious that there were people so possessed by their cause that, in an exaltation of hatred, they would do anything in its name. Many reports--most recently an article in the New York Times on the very morning of the attack--reminded the public that the world was awash in nuclear materials and the wherewithal for other weapons of mass destruction. Russia is bursting at the seams with these materials. The suicide bombers and the market in nuclear materials was that two-plus-two that points toward the proverbial necessary four. But history is a trickster. The fates came up with a horror that was unforeseen. No one had identified the civilian airliner as a weapon of mass destruction, but it occurred to the diabolical imagination of those who conceived Tuesday's attack that it could be one. The invention illumined the nature of terrorism in modern times. These terrorists carried no bombs--only knives, if initial reports are to be believed. In short, they turned the tremendous forces inherent in modern technical society--in this case, Boeing 767s brimming with jet fuel--against itself. So it is also with the more commonly recognized weapons of mass destruction. Their materials can be built the hard way, from scratch, as Iraq came within an ace of doing until stopped by the Gulf War and as Pakistan and India have done, or they can be diverted from Russian, or for that matter American or English or French or Chinese, stockpiles. In the one case, it is nuclear know-how that is turned against its inventors, in the other it is their hardware. Either way, it is "blowback"--the use of a technical capacity against its creator--and, as such, represents the pronounced suicidal tendencies of modern society. This suicidal bent--nicely captured in the name of the still current nuclear policy "mutual assured destruction"--of course exists in forms even more devastating than possible terrorist attacks. India and Pakistan, which both possess nuclear weapons and have recently engaged in one of their many hot wars, are the likeliest candidates. Most important--and most forgotten--are the some 30,000 nuclear weapons that remain in the arsenals of Russia and the United States. The Bush Administration has announced its intention of breaking out of the antiballistic missile treaty of 1972, which bans antinuclear defenses, and the Russians have answered that if this treaty is abandoned the whole framework of nuclear arms control built up over thirty years may collapse. There is no quarrel between the United States and Russia that suggests a nuclear exchange between them, but accidents are another matter, and, as Tuesday's attack has shown, the mood and even the structure of the international order can change overnight. What should be done? Should the terrorists who carried out Tuesday's attacks be brought to justice and punished, as the President wants to do? Of course. Who should be punished if not people who would hurl a cargo of innocent human beings against a fixed target of other innocent human beings? (When weighing the efficiency--as distinct from the satisfaction--of punishment, however, it is well to remember that the immediate attackers have administered the supposed supreme punishment of death to themselves.) Should further steps be taken to protect the country and the world from terrorism, including nuclear terrorism? They should. And yet even as we do these things, we must hold, as if to life itself, to a fundamental truth that has been known to all thoughtful people since the destruction of Hiroshima: There is no technical solution to the vulnerability of modern populations to weapons of mass destruction. After the attack, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld placed US forces on the highest state of alert and ordered destroyers and aircraft carriers to take up positions up and down the coasts of the United States. But none of these measures can repeal the vulnerability of modern society to its own inventions, revealed by that heart-breaking gap in the New York skyline. This, obviously, holds equally true for that other Maginot line, the proposed system of national missile defense. Thirty billion dollars is being spent on intelligence annually. We can assume that some portion of that was devoted to protecting the World Trade Center after it was first bombed in 1993. There may have been mistakes--maybe we'll find out--but the truth is that no one on earth can demonstrate that the expenditure of even ten times that amount can prevent a terrorist attack on the United States or any other country. The combination of the extraordinary power of modern technology, the universal and instantaneous spread of information in the information age and the mobility inherent in a globalized economy prevents it. Man, however, is not merely a technical animal. Aristotle pointed out that we are also a political animal, and it is to politics that we must return for the solutions that hold promise. That means returning to the treaties that the United States has recently been discarding like so much old newspaper--the one dealing, for example, with an International Criminal Court (useful for tracking down terrorists and bringing them to justice), with global warming and, above all, of course, with nuclear arms and the other weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. The United States and seven other countries now rely for their national security on the retaliatory execution of destruction a millionfold greater than the Tuesday attacks. The exit from this folly, by which we endanger ourselves as much as others, must be found. Rediscovering ourselves as political animals also means understanding the sources of the hatred that the United States has incurred in a decade of neglect and, worse, neglect of international affairs--a task that is highly unwelcome to many in current circumstances but nevertheless is indispensable to the future safety of the United States and the world. It would be disrespectful of the dead to in any way minimize the catastrophe that has overtaken New York. Yet at the same time we must keep room in our minds for the fact that it could have been worse. To lose two huge buildings and the people in them is one thing; to lose all of Manhattan--or much, much more--is another. The emptiness in the sky can spread. We have been warned. Terror in America by Robert Fisk PRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=S" INCLUDEPICTURE \d \z "/images/icaps/s.gif" o it has come to this. The entire modern history of the Middle East--the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Balfour declaration, Lawrence of Arabia's lies, the Arab revolt, the foundation of the state of Israel, four Arab-Israeli wars and the thirty-four years of Israel's brutal occupation of Arab land--all erased within hours as those who claim to represent a crushed, humiliated population struck back with the wickedness and awesome cruelty of a doomed people. Is it fair--is it moral--to write this so soon, without proof, when the last act of barbarism, in Oklahoma, turned out to be the work of home-grown Americans? I fear it is. America is at war and, unless I am mistaken, many thousands more are now scheduled to die in the Middle East, perhaps in America too. Some of us warned of "the explosion to come.'' But we never dreamt this nightmare. And yes, Osama bin Laden comes to mind--his money, his theology, his frightening dedication to destroying American power. I have sat in front of bin Laden as he described how his men helped to destroy the Russian Army in Afghanistan and thus the Soviet Union [see Fisk, September 21, 1998]. Their boundless confidence allowed them to declare war on America. But this is not really the war of democracy versus terror that the world will be asked to believe in the coming days. It is also about US missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells crashing into a village called Qana and about a Lebanese militia--paid and uniformed by America's Israeli ally--hacking and raping and murdering their way through refugee camps. No, there is no doubting the utter, indescribable evil of what has happened in the United States. That Palestinians could celebrate the massacre of thousands of innocent people is not only a symbol of their despair but of their political immaturity, of their failure to grasp what they had always been accusing their Israeli enemies of doing: acting disproportionately. All the years of rhetoric, all the promises to strike at the heart of America, to cut off the head of "the American snake'' we took for empty threats. How could a backward, conservative, undemocratic and corrupt group of regimes and small, violent organizations fulfill such preposterous promises? Now we know. And in the hours that followed the September 11 annihilation, I began to remember those other extraordinary assaults upon the United States and its allies, miniature now by comparison with yesterday's casualties. Did not the suicide bombers who killed 239 American servicemen and 58 French paratroopers in Beirut on October 23, 1983, time their attacks with unthinkable precision? There were just seven seconds between the Marine bombing and the destruction of the French three miles away. Then there were the attacks on US bases in Saudi Arabia, and last year's attempt--almost successful, it turned out--to sink the USS Cole in Aden. And then how easy was our failure to recognize the new weapon of the Middle East, which neither Americans nor any other Westerners could equal: the despair-driven, desperate suicide bomber. And there will be, inevitably, and quite immorally, an attempt to obscure the historical wrongs and the injustices that lie behind the firestorms. We will be told about "mindless terrorism,'' the "mindless" bit being essential if we are not to realize how hated America has become in the land of the birth of three great religions. Ask an Arab how he responds to the thousands of innocent deaths, and he or she will respond as decent people should, that it is an unspeakable crime. But they will ask why we did not use such words about the sanctions that have destroyed the lives of perhaps half a million children in Iraq, why we did not rage about the 17,500 civilians killed in Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon. And those basic reasons why the Middle East caught fire last September--the Israeli occupation of Arab land, the dispossession of Palestinians, the bombardments and state-sponsored executions--all these must be obscured lest they provide the smallest fractional reason for the mass savagery on September 11. No, Israel was not to blame--though we can be sure that Saddam Hussein and the other grotesque dictators will claim so--but the malign influence of history and our share in its burden must surely stand in the dark with the suicide bombers. Our broken promises, perhaps even our destruction of the Ottoman Empire, led inevitably to this tragedy. America has bankrolled Israel's wars for so many years that it believed this would be cost-free. No longer so. But, of course, the United States will want to strike back against "world terror.'' Indeed, who could ever point the finger at Americans now for using that pejorative and sometimes racist word "terrorism''? Eight years ago, I helped make a television series that tried to explain why so many Muslims had come to hate the West. Now I remember some of those Muslims in that film, their families burnt by American-made bombs and weapons. They talked about how no one would help them but God. Theology versus technology, the suicide bomber against the nuclear power. Now we have learned what this means. The Dark Smoke by David Corn PRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=I" INCLUDEPICTURE \d \z "/images/icaps/i.gif" n the immediate, before-it-sinks-in aftermath of the September 11 attack, one of the first catch-phrases to take hold--and be widely deployed by TV commentators, politicians and citizen e-mailers--was, "this changes everything." As the media clich? goes, time will tell how much of American life will be altered by the assault. Clearly, politics as we know it will not be the same in the weeks and months, and perhaps years, ahead. As Tim Russert observed, while hellish dust clouds billowed, "Suddenly the Social Security lockbox seems so trivial." The hideous event will naturally dominate the national conversation. There will be little media space for other matters. The budget battle, the disappeared surplus, the Bush tax cuts, campaign finance reform, patients' bill of rights, trade tussles, global warming--Washington's agenda will be overwhelmed by the attack, to the President's distinct advantage. And the terms of political discussion will dramatically shift--again, mostly to George W. Bush's advantage. Two hours after the first explosion, Representative Curt Weldon, a Republican from Pennsylvania, declared, "The number-one responsibility" of the government is not education or healthcare but the "security of the American people." And national security hawks quickly began to shape the debate to come. The issue for them is not what causes such unimaginable actions. On Day One did you hear anyone--in an attempt to understand, not justify, the horror--ask, Why would someone want to commit this evil act? Or note that in this globalized age, US policy--its actions and inactions overseas (justified or not)--can easily lead to consequences at home? No, the national security cadre, out in force, mainly raised questions of how best to bolster the military and intelligence establishment. Before rescue efforts were up and running, the friends of that establishment were mounting an offensive. Former Secretary of State James Baker blamed the Church Committee, the Senate panel that investigated CIA misdeeds in the 1970s, for what happened: "We went on a real witch hunt with our CIA...the Church Committee. We unilaterally disarmed in terms of intelligence." Newt Gingrich assailed rules on intelligence gathering that limit CIA interaction with known terrorists, and he asserted that the intelligence budget (about $30 billion) was "too small." Others decried the prohibition on government-sponsored assassination. Dan Quayle urged that the President be granted "extraordinary powers internationally and domestically" to deal with terrorists. (Asked what he had in mind, Quayle replied, "I'm not going to get too specific.") John McCain, Orrin Hatch and Bob Graham--the last of whom chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee--griped that the United States has concentrated too much on technical intelligence (spy satellites and high-tech eavesdropping) and has been negligent in the ways of "human intelligence"--humint, in the parlance of spies. More money would have to be poured into humint, they and others remarked. Hatch also complained that "we've allowed our military to deteriorate" and that the "Russians have a better tactical fighter than we do." Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger used the moment to claim that "the defense budget is woefully underdone." Some hawks and others did criticize US intelligence for failing to detect the plot. Kenneth Katzman, a terrorism expert at the Congressional Research Service, said, "How nothing could have been picked up is beyond me--way beyond me. There's a major, major intelligence failure, specially since the [previous] Trade Center bombing produced such an investigation of the networks and so much monitoring." No doubt, there will be official inquiries. But the knee-jerk goal for most of the inquirers will be additional funds for the intelligence community and the Pentagon. The spies will defend their actions and plead, if only our hands were not tied, if only we had more money. Given the horrors of the attack, these pleas will probably have resonance. But the operating assumptions at work deserve close assessment. Human intelligence against closed societies and secret outfits has long been a difficult, almost impossible, endeavor. Hurling money at it is likely no solution. During the Vietnam War, when resources were unlimited, the CIA failed spectacularly at humint, essentially never penetrating the inner sanctums of the enemy. Its record of infiltrating the Soviet government was unimpressive (and the same goes for China, Cuba and other targets). As for lifting existing restrictions, imagine the dilemmas posed if the CIA actually managed to recruit and pay murderous members of terrorist groups. What would the reaction be, if one of the September 11 conspirators turns out to have had a US intelligence connection? Do not be surprised if the national security establishment even tries to accelerate its push for Star Wars II before the debris is cleared. The event tragically demonstrated the limits of a national missile defense system. (And consider how much worse the day would have been had the evildoers smuggled a pound of uranium onto any of the hijacked flights.) But the loudest theme in American politics--perhaps the only audible theme--in the time ahead will be the quest for security. With those drums beating, the fans of national missile defense will continue to argue that this remains a dangerous world full of suicidal maniacs wishing the United States harm and that all steps must be taken as fast as possible. Moreover, how many politicians will now question Bush's budget-busting request to raise Pentagon spending by 10 percent? Speaking about Bush, Senator Hillary Clinton said, "We will support him in whatever steps he deems necessary." Whatever steps? As the nation absorbed the shock, leaders and media observers repeated the nostrum that the best way for the country to respond to such a foul crime is to return to normal and signal that the nation's spirit and resolve cannot be undermined. In that vein, one challenge is to not allow the attack to distort the country's political discourse. Unfortunately, extremism begets extremism, and the dark smoke of a dark day will not be easily blown away. !";<=>DE E EE%EMENEEEEEEEEFFFEFFFGFHFaFbFYYddddddddyyyyyyyyyK 6mH sH jU 0JmH sH jU 5mH sH jUmHnHu56CJOJQJ5CJ$OJQJOJQJ 6OJQJ jU mH sH  jUmH sH >!=2w O =l E&E:EGFcFGIOgRdVI^& <I^bqddddd:h_k noEqrGuwiyyyyyy{`x;<& KQgo<mH sH  6mH sH +0P. A!"#$n%DyK F-\directory\view.mhtml?handle=schell_jonathanDyK F-\directory\view.mhtml?handle=schell_jonathan i2@2 Normale_HmHsHtHNA@N Carattere predefinito paragrafo8O8 H2$dd@&5CJ$htHu4O4 H5$dd@& 5htHu<O< H1$dd@&5CJ0KH$htHuHU@!H Collegamento ipertestuale>*B*<K<KOI^<LN<M=MAAAAAAABEB```uuu<CXtCXtCC`2$7&̘Vue.2$FNwO`ޭ:<2$ I+:3 ®{K2$K6MAAAFB>COMUNE DI FROSINONE'C:\Documenti\Paolo\After the Horror.doc Erbavoglio<C:\Documenti\Sito Oltre l'Occidente\11settembre_articoli.doc`uu>@@{<@UnknownGTimes New Roman5Symbol3& Arial"0 wFwFKuWY02After the HorrorCOMUNE DI FROSINONE Erbavoglio Oh+'0p  , 8 DPX`hAfter the HorrordfteCOMUNE DI FROSINONEOMUNormalD ErbavoglioR2baMicrosoft Word 9.0@F#@~U@~UKu ՜.+,D՜.+,L hp  Comune di FosinoneW After the Horror Titolol 8@ _PID_HLINKSA$ M$ -\directory\view.mhtml?handle=schell_jonathanM$-\directory\view.mhtml?handle=schell_jonathan  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPRSTUVWXZ[\]^_`bcdefghjklmnopsRoot Entry F{XUuData Q1TableYWordDocument-SummaryInformation(aDocumentSummaryInformation8iCompObjnObjectPool{XU{XU  FDocumento di Microsoft Word MSWordDocWord.Document.89q