Monday, July 11, 2005

Slower, please.

Best comment piece regarding the London attacks so far comes from Michael Ledeen:

Ever since Thursday evening we’ve been subjected to the usual flow of instant analysis and data, and as usual most of it has been wrong. Wrong, as always, in the details, from the number of bombs to the number of victims, and then wrong — or, at a minimum, unconvincing — about the "meaning" of it all. First came speculation that the terrorists were locals, buttressed by a leak from the British government asserting that al Qaeda was recruiting among university students in the United Kingdom. Or maybe not. Shortly thereafter, it seemed that the terrorists were foreigners who sneaked into the country in order to carry out the operation. This was similarly reinforced by stories claiming that the Brits were looking for the same terrorist who had planned the Madrid train bombings.

Inevitably, writers on a short deadline felt obliged to look for the greater significance of the killings in London. The usual suspects, led by the New York Times, blamed it all on Bush and Blair and their perverse willingness to fight back against our murderers. On the other hand, a small cottage industry has grown up around the theory that, bad as it was, the operation is actually good news because, just as the terrorists killed fewer people in Madrid than in New York and Washington, they killed fewer still in London. This was said to "mean" that al Qaeda’s capacity for violence was ebbing. The argument is simple: If al Qaeda could have done worse, they’d have done it. Since they didn’t, they probably couldn’t.

That may be right. But we really don’t know, and I don’t see the value in guessing about something so important. Suppose, as I fear, there is a more violent attack in Rome in the near future. What, if anything, would that prove? That there are more explosives in Italy than in England? It pays to be a bit more humble when analyzing fragments of information, and none of the analysts has spoken of the enormously important "luck" factor. There were reportedly at least two unexploded bombs in London, just as there were unexploded bombs in Madrid. Bad luck for the terrorists. There was a failed suicide mission in the skies over Pennsylvania on 9/11. Unlucky — the infidels fought back. There is also considerable reason to believe that al Qaeda did not anticipate that the assault against the Twin Towers would bring them down. That time they got lucky. Maybe they were unlucky in London. Or maybe, as Sunday reports suggest, there are further bombers waiting to act. Thursday’s event is too small a "sample" to permit us to generalize on the terror universe. And I’m afraid that those who are doing it are looking too hard at a single event, and not hard enough at the overall situation. Policemen are being beheaded in Thailand, Christian missionaries are kidnapped in the Philippines, some of our finest fighting men are being killed in Afghanistan, and bombs are going off again in Turkey.



There's also a lot of the usual stuff in the article but in these terms he hits it dead on.

He's also noted the Iran-Iraq military training programme, which has still received astonishingly little coverage, regardless of what conclusions one might draw from it.

I was in Harrogate yesterday and as I was walking past a rack of newspapers I had a look at some of the stories on offer. As far as I can tell, 50% of the press is running with "EXCLUSIVE!!!!!!!: London bombers homgrown!!!" and the other 50% is running with "EXCLUSIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!: London bombers were foreign terrorists!!!!"

Similarly, about half are describing the attack as devilish sophisticated and half are describing it as crude.

4 Comments:

Blogger Alex said...

It's the mixture of lack of data and overdetermination that does it: I can think of many reasons to do it on that day (G8/Olympics/Abu Hamza trial/Netanyahu in town), but it seems just as likely that it was a rush job in response to factors 2 and 3 (neither of which were known long in advance) than a long-prepared attack on factor 1. I don't think it would have needed much preparing given that they had a bombmaking capability - if you've spent any time in London at all, you'll know that there are a lot of people on the tube around 0900. Make bomb. Put in tube. Run. It doesn't take Templar's ghost to plan that.

But the effects wouldn't have been very different had they cased the stations, timed the trains and drawn up a detailed tasking statement. In fact, detailed planning would only have been necessary in the "solo bomber at Kings Cross" scenario, because a single bomber would have needed to know the exact times (either by timing the trains or by getting access to the working timetable) and time themselves moving from line to line *in the rush hour*

7:02 AM  
Anonymous Kindermord said...

I'm curious about you're previous post.

What are the top ten countries you harbour xenophobic prejudices against?

6:24 PM  
Blogger Anthony said...

1) Equatorial Guinea
2) Luxembourg
3) Greece
4) Latvia
5) France
6) Barbados
7) Spain
8) Guam
9) Australia
10)Sweden


Or, to clarify, I was joking.


That said, I don't feel any particularly strong tie to the place and their stance on Gibraltar (with certain qualifying points - the Spanish have legitimate grievence with regard to smuggling and lawlessness coming out of Gibraltar that has a direct impact on them) strikes me as both annoying and deeply hypocritical.

7:54 PM  
Anonymous Kindermord said...

That's a pity. I suppose I was hoping for a good clean dislike/hatred of somewhere. A friend of mine wrestled with himself for several hours while trying to think of some manner of blaming the London bombings on the French.

7:28 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home