EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Fizzled Bombs Sparks Growth for Politicians
More than two weeks after the event, I’m baffled that the news media insist on calling the attempted car bombing in Times Square a “failed” terrorist attack. Just because Faizal Shahzad failed to kill anybody doesn’t mean he didn’t succeed in achieving important political objectives for politicians and terrorists everywhere, including some in our own country.
For one thing, Shahzad has handed the Obama administration renewed justification for pouring billions of dollars into its “counterinsurgency” war in Afghanistan — just when even the most hawkish types were questioning the president’s sanity in backing Hamid Karzai, the narco-CEO and Pashtun tribal leader who barely rules Kabul. Karzai’s vote-stealing as well as his complaints about American interference in his government’s attempts to negotiate with the Taliban were not endearing him to Washington’s foreign-policy establishment. Until Shahzad’s incompetent action on May 1, Karzai (aided by his drug kingpin half-brother) was managing to undermine the whole American war effort: his refusal to stay on message interfered with the current drivel that national security requires more volunteers for the army and greater vigilance by the citizenry.
Politicians like Obama thrive on the rhetoric of national emergency. Like Bush, he appreciates a relatively safe threat, so he had to be thrilled to be making congratulatory calls to the two T-shirt vendors who had noticed the smoking SUV and alerted the cops.
He also must have been delighted to be able to thank his friends in the Pakistani government for rounding up some “Taliban” suspects who had somehow eluded their notice until Shahzad struck. Deeply corrupt and often uncooperative, Pakistan’s governing oligarchy was similarly becoming a poor public-relations partner in America’s anti-terrorist effort. How could Obama sell Congress on more aid to Islamabad when Pakistan’s intelligence service was leaking reports to the U.S. press arguing that NATO’s occupation of Afghanistan was creating more terrorism and strengthening the Taliban — inside Pakistan?
Now, with the “terror front” again brought to the crossroads of America (Times Square is a short subway ride away from World Trade Center site), the whole rationale for expending lives and money on a fruitless and counterproductive foreign policy has been revived. Shahzad’s bomb attempt is also a boon to the president’s re-election campaign, which, like George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign, needs an external threat as a plant needs sunlight and carbon dioxide. When the president sounds decisive in the face of “terror,” it always plays well on the evening news.
But such political photosynthesis doesn’t benefit just a sitting president. Other, lesser public figures with authoritarian cravings suck in the oxygen produced by the “terror threat” like so many emphysema sufferers.
In New York, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, backed by his billionaire boss, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has been steadily wearing away at civil liberties since the huge antiwar demonstrations in February 2003 and anti-Bush protests at the Republican Convention in 2004. With Bush under attack, Kelly and Bloomberg twice came to the president’s defense. During the huge antiwar gathering that preceded the “pre-emptive” invasion of Iraq, they succeeded in confining more than 100,000 demonstrators to an area near the United Nations, which prevented a real march that would have gotten greater media coverage. At the convention that re-nominated Bush more than a year later, Kelly simply threw out the Bill of Rights and sent his men to arrest about 1,800 anti-Bush activists, many of whom were simply standing around with signs and threatening no one (90 percent of the cases were dropped).
While the more than 50 civil-rights suits stemming from Kelly’s convention round up drag on against the city, New York’s top cop has moved into new realms of unconstitutional behavior with a “random” stop-and-frisk campaign aimed mostly at black and Latino teenagers. At the same time, New York’s finest have extended their crime-fighting techniques into the public schools, where they don’t hesitate to handcuff 12-year-old “terrorists.” As The New York Times’s Bob Herbert put it, Kelly’s forces are “determined to keep the city safe from sixth graders armed with magic markers.”
Truly, Kelly should hang a picture of Faizal Shahzad in his office at police headquarters, for the bungling bomber has single-handedly restored vigor and credibility to the policy of stop-and-frisk. So should Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Kelly’s partner in crime-fighting, who now proposes that the government be able to strip “terrorists” of their U.S. citizenship and ship them to the prison at Guantànamo Bay. How “involvement in a foreign terrorist organization” would be determined is unclear, but I’m sure Police Commissioner Kelly could be called upon for wise counsel.
Curiously, Mayor Bloomberg seemed ungrateful to Shahzad, although he did seize the occasion to praise “the most comprehensive and sophisticated counterterrorism operation of any local police force in the world” and escort Obama on a guided tour of the Real Time Crime Center at One Police Plaza. Instead of thanking Shahzad, the mayor chalked up the bombing attempt to insecurity by angry Muslims in repressive foreign countries: “There are some people around the world who find our freedom so threatening that they’re willing to kill themselves and others to prevent us from enjoying it.
“We’re not going to let them win,” he added. Presumably, Bloomberg wasn’t being ironic and doesn’t consider the freedom of assembly, the freedom to walk down the street unhindered if you’re 17 and black, or the freedom to misbehave in sixth grade without getting handcuffed to be among those liberties that have so affronted our enemies abroad.
Of course, Obama, Bloomberg, Lieberman and Kelly aren’t the only beneficiaries of Shahzad’s amateurish efforts on behalf of worldwide terrorism. In the end, what makes the Times Square bombing attempt such a success is that it gives the Taliban, and al-Qaida, exactly what they need to survive and recruit new members: an open-ended military occupation by Western infidels, who terrorize, kill and maim civilians in Kandahar and Fallujah; and the ongoing U.S. interrogation, brutalizing and peremptory jailing of terrorist suspects with Muslim and Arabic names.
Indeed, if Shahzad’s bomb had killed or wounded innocent bystanders at 45th Street and Seventh Avenue, some Americans might have gotten the idea that the evil foreigners were fighting back.
And they might have asked what we’re still doing in Afghanistan and Iraq.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


15 Comments so far
Show AllNeither this "attack" or the "underwear bomber" seem real to me. I suspect that these were staged by the government to keep fear levels high.
I agree...whenever we start to question policy or public opinion seems to swing away from the administration, something like this conveniently stirs the jingoistic stew. Either that, or some stupid celebrity event takes or mind off of what "we" should be concerned about.
Yup.
Fear has always worked to keep the bloated war-profiteering budget obscenely high while social services budgets are slashed.
That's how the Empire keeps funding itself by stealing our taxes while we gladly hand them over to "keep us safe".
Has anyone else, besides baruchzed, noticed something wrong with this picture?
Lately, terrorist bombs in the US don't go off. They go off everywhere else, like Kabul, Baghdad, or Karachi; the one in Oklahoma City went off; and the 9/11 attacks were all too effective. But since the "underwear bomber," they don't go off. The latest failure was "trained in Waziristan," but he didn't know which kind of fertilizer explodes. Even I know that. He had the wrong kind in his "bomb"! And how do you make a gasoline bomb that fizzles?
So maybe, just maybe, they aren't MEANT to go off. Maybe they're meant to scare the crap out of us and justify continuing a failed but immensely profitable strategy in "Af-Pak" - and for that matter, the rest of the world.
Exactly right. They aren't meant to go off because the US people are so easily stampeded that they don't need them to go off. But make no mistake. If people become ho hum about another "terrorist" who can't build bombs a la "the gang that can't shoot straight" and start to turn away from the "war on terror", it would be no trick at all to arrange for limbs and entrails to be blown around Times Square, some of which would belong to a "suicide bomber" with "links" to the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden, or some mysterious outfit in Pakistan, Yemen, or god knows where.
You also forgot to mention Richard Reid, the failed shoe bomber.
I doubt if we will even know the real story with this dubious "Shahzad" character. The whole story is improbable if not impossible. He'll disappear into the "security apparatus" over time; when he does the possibility of a full, final accounting of the attempted bombing will disappear too. Meanwhile the "Pakistani Taliban", who and whatever that might be, can't decide whether to take credit or not. Do they want credit for an apparently bungled job.
This whole thing is as bottomless as the well BP blew out in the gulf of Mexico. No matter how far you drill, nothing comes out but impenetrable black goo.
Well, you know, here's the deal: on 9/11 two buildings collapsed into their own footprints, two planes 'vaporized themselves' and another building collapsed for, apparently, $hits and giggles.
I'd say that after that, every so called 'plot' the government-run media tells you about, is either a frame-up, entrapment, or just flat out fantasy. Hell if I was given an option of going to trial and likely being handed hundreds of years for so called "terrorism" I'd take a deal and plea guilty too.
By the way, anyone remember Sirhan Sirhan...kills RFK and doesn't remember a thing about it? I get the feeling that at least 99% of these so called 'would be terrorists' are nothing more than framed-up PATSIES.
RE: "I get the feeling that at least 99% of these so called 'would be terrorists' are nothing more than framed-up PATSIES."
Can't be ruled out!
"But such political photosynthesis doesn’t benefit just a sitting president. Other, lesser public figures with authoritarian cravings suck in the oxygen produced by the “terror threat” like so many emphysema sufferers." That's one of the best lines of seen during this whole mess!
I agree. Fine prose imagery.
Bill from Saginaw
Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead.
"If Shahzad's bomb had wounded or killed innocent bystanders at 45th Street and 7th Avenue, some Americans might have gotten the idea that the evil foreigners were fighting back."
And if there were blood on the pavement of Times Square, the foreign policy political backlash would have been pretty much the same as outlined in McArthur's article: a media-fed popular focus upon doubling down the US/NATO military escalation, good PR news for Karzai, good PR news for the Pakistani ISI, etc. However, I suspect the spin of the partisan backlash would have been quite different on the domestic front.
Paired with sensationalized biographical sketches of the SUV bomber's innocent victims, we would have been treated in the mainstream media echo chamber to Dick Cheney, Faux News, pundits like Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh, and the usual GOP opportunists clamoring for a sacrificial lamb or two from the Obama national security team for its ineptitude.
They let down their guard, and failed to keep the American homeland safe.
We told you so. The Dems just don't get it. They don't understand that there's a real war on.
Implicit in the right wing message framing would be that a semi-successful, or spectacularly successful attack which generated innocent civilian casualties in broad daylight in downtown New York City would, at a minimum, even things up for the Bushies' failure to detect and prevent 9/11. And the post-9/11 policies of torture, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention, taking off the gloves and riding full tilt boogie on the dark side - well, they clearly worked to keep America safe for seven years, didn't they?
"Politicians like Obama thrive on the rhetoric of national emergency. Like Bush, he appreciates a relatively safe threat, so he must have been thrilled to be making congratulatory telephone calls to the two T-shirt vendors who had noticed the smoking SUV and called the cops."
Well, enjoy the thrill while you can. In more metaphorical ways than one, he who lives by the sword may die by the sword. When a domestic terror attack does succeed and kill US civilians on Obama's watch, the presidential phone calls of condolence will not play well in Peoria, and you can bet the usual suspects will be waiting to pounce.
Some folks keep whistling on past the graveyard even when there's signs all around of danger looming ahead.
Bill from Saginaw
Terrific post, Bill. You've got that keyboard smokin'.
Fizzled Bombs
That describes our politicians !!!