Wednesday, March 02, 2005
The declining impact of terrorism
'Militant' groups have often attempted to stabilize the front whenever events threatened to take a direction which they could not control. This usually took the form of a spoiling terrorist attack to re-mire things in blood, chaos and hatred as often happened during negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. It would not be surprising if the terror masters fell back on this old repertoire by staging attacks directed not only at Middle Eastern targets but at the United States to throw back the threatening psychological wave. The problem is that there is no longer any widespread confidence, even in the places like Lebanon, that terror tactics will prevail. To that extent even the most heinous attacks, like the carbomb which recently killed more than 100 in Iraq, have lost their bite. Psychologically speaking, the greatest contribution of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns is that they have shattered terrorism's myth of invincibility. The terrorists embarked on a maximum effort to dislodge the US from Iraq, employing every weapon of violence, political maneuver and propaganda they could muster and came up much the worse for wear. This lesson has not been lost to public perception and has emboldened dissidents all across the region.
Wretchard is correct in his view that terrorism on the scale of carbombings has lost its ability to shock the conscience. The world increasingly understands that jihadis cannot be appeased, and that the only useful response is steely defiance. Yesterday, two thousand Iraqis gathered spontaneously at the site of the carbombing to which Wretchard refers. Their protests weren't aimed at the United States, but at the Ba'athists and jihadis who visited this outrage on innocent Iraqis.
Perhaps more tellingly, the reaction in the Western media was astonishingly muted. There was, of course, pro forma coverage, but virtually none of the hanky twisting that would have accompanied such an attack just months ago. There are a number of reasons for the press's low-key response, some specific to the context and some more general. Wretchard's psychological callouses are certainly a factor. Also, the attitude of the media, including the European media, seems to be more confused today than it was in the previous twenty or so months. The success of the elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine, the announced reforms in Egypt, and the Cedar Revoution in Lebanon have caused a lot of principled doves to wonder whether the rhetoric of George Bush and the facts on the ground in Iraq might not in fact have unleashed an unseen Arab ambition for legitimate, representative government. This has caused the media to go looking for stories that would not have made it on to the front page, or even received an editor's authorization, just a few weeks ago. See, for example, today's front page story on the growing willingness of Saudi Arabia's Shiites to practice their religion in public and demand recognition in what passes for Saudi civil society.
Finally, George Bush is no longer standing for re-election, but emphatically re-elected. There is no hay to be made in implying that every assassination in Iraq is his fault. The Note had this to say on Monday:
The horrific car bomb explosion outside of Baghdad — killing more than 100 and sure to dominate cable and network news all day — shows just how politically strong President Bush is right now.
We only reluctantly draw political lessons from human tragedy, but today's news is yet another reminder that on a range of issues — national security, foreign affairs, budgeting, dealing with the nation's gathered governors — the President has the whip hand.
Events and positions that would have brought hailstorms down on past presidents (say: Bill Clinton) don't seem to be seen as "political" problems for this administration right now.
That condition will not last forever, but it gives Bush enormous leverage, particularly in foreign affairs. If Bush's strength has the collateral effect of dampening the pessimism in MSM coverage of the upheaval in the Arab world, a virtuous cycle of positive press coverage and political transformation may take hold. The Cedar Revolution, after all, is nothing but a revolution in rising expectations.
2 Comments:
By 
Cardinalpark, at
Wed Mar 02, 10:52:00 AM:
Particularly interesting is this notion of a tipping point. While i don't believe it applies so well to regime change - that can be stopped or deferred or altered by harsh tactics - it absolutely applies to the media. The NYT editorial on the Climate of Mideast Change yesterday reflected that the MSM as embodied in the NYT had been convinced. Why? It is not possible to believe that the extraordinary events of the last 60 DAYS could have happened without the forceful policies of the Bush Administration. They acknowledge it could not have happened otherwise. Review - elections in Iraq, the Palestinian territories, even pathetic election is Saudi Arabia, proposed elections in Egypt, and now Lebanon agitating for its release from Syrian captivity. All this since the onset of 2005, and not coincidentally, our elections of November 2004.
That momentum has shocked the liberal elite and its mouthpiece. Furthermore, the NYT editorial board is following the lead of Hillary Clinton - who understands there is no hope for political victory in 2008 without embracing this Mideast change. She has to figure out how to get some of the glow, and she can't have her media mouthpieces talking Howard Dean-like talk. It has to stop now. Being antiwar when your country wins is a loser.
So there is great momentum. But arrogance is dangerous and deadly in the field. Syria could get desperate and unleash carnage in Lebanon. Syria itself could develop a power vacuum and bloddy chaos could reign. Iran could, in fear and desperation, launch a preemptive strike at Israel (so could Syrai), or even Iraq. These actions, aggressive and deadly, could stall positive momentum. They would not alter the eventual outcome, mind you, but they would increase the cost dramatically in lives and money.
Never underestimate the ability of tyrants to miscalculate. What may seem obvious to us will not be so to them. And as conflict reaches its penultimate stages, the violence escalates, the rules get murkier, bad things happen.
So while we should feel more confident with our daily successes in the wisdom of our policy, nothing else has really changed but perception. It's dangerous and violent and deadly. But brilliantly calibrated, our policies are bringing about maximum results with minimum loss of life.
What if we had challenged Hitler in 1936 when he marched into Czechoslavakia? How many lives would have been saved? Would Easter Europe have been conquered by the Soviets?
We have learned the lessons of European history - and they, tragically, have not. And the more we watch it play out in the Middle East today, the sadder it is to rethink what might NOT have been in Europe.
By Unknown, at
Wed Mar 02, 06:14:00 PM:
Hmmm, Jack. Looks like you've been reading this post from Scylla & Charybdis.
