Skip to comments.

Posted on 10/22/2001 1:01:42 PM PDT by vrwc54

Dare We Believe The Obvious?

Americans crossed a Rubicon this week. At least they thought they had. First it was weapons-grade anthrax, then it wasn't, then it was, then it wasn't. Then we learned that 'weapons-grade' is a poor description. "Weapons Grade" is better understood as genetically-modified anthrax that is immune to anti-biotics, and the powder that exposed over 30 Senate staffers was the more treatable variety. At that point, believe it or not, Washingtonians gave up a huge sigh of relief. It may have been a biological weapon, but it wasn't a really, really deadly one. Phew. The atmosphere in D.C. is jittery but not panic-stricken. In the bars on 18th and 17th Street, Congressional workers were joking last week about their nasal swabs and celebrating a few unexpected days off work. By Friday, the most popular view was that Speaker Hastert and House minority leader Gephardt had made fools of themselves by closing the House of Representatives down for a few days. "WIMPS" was the headline in the New York Post.

And then it sunk in. What happened in America this past week is epochal. Imagine the following scenario: a few weeks after Canary Wharf is levelled, the corridors of the House of Commons are full of anthrax powder and the BBC is shut down after a biological attack. In a matter of weeks, we have gone from an unprecedented conventional massacre of American citizens to the use of biological weapons - weapons that even Saddam didn't use against the Western alliance in the Gulf War. Even Muammar Ghaddafi condemned this attack last week as a "cowardly, evil and irresponsible action putting in danger the whole of humanity." Even the Guardian managed to find sympathy - temporarily - for the government of the United States. We have gone in one instant to a new level of threat. We know something we strongly suspected before, but which now cannot be denied. These people will do anything. The question is not whether there may be a far bigger biological or chemical attack on the West, but simply whether the enemy has the means to do so. We know full well that they have the will and the intent. We have been warned in the most direct and arresting fashion.

In the past, the doctrine has been that the United States will use nuclear weapons in response to the use of germ warfare against its army - let alone its citizens, let alone the citadel of its democracy. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has pointedly refused to rule out such a possibility. The immediate challenge, of course, is to determine what this kind of anthrax is, whether its DNA can help us determine its source, whether we can get good intelligence to determine who unleashed this weapon of mass destruction. This may take some time and it may not be completely conclusive. But it seems to me that an escalation of the war in response to this attack is now inevitable. No government can stand by while its own citizens are subjected to chemical and biological warfare. I write this within easy sight of the Senate. Millions of people live in the vicinity of the New York and Washington attacks. The nature of the anthrax - sophisticated but not the most lethal weapon available - is clearly a warning that more lies ahead. No responsible government can wait until such a calamity occurs. The Bush administration will therefore come under increasing pressure to do something in direct response, and their initial caution and scepticism about the anthrax attacks is a natural desire not to have to face this hideous decision yet. But at some point, they will not be able to avoid it. How do we respond to a biological attack that is almost certainly sophisticated enough to prove the involvement of a foreign government?

The reason why escalation is probable is not the rashness of the Bush administration which remains almost surreally calm and measured. It isn't even that no government could tolerate such an attack without unleashing all its might on the enemy. The reason is the mood of the American people. Shock has turned to grief has turned to numbness has turned to anger. This anger is real and it is growing. So far the Bush administration has deftly ridden this wave of rage. But if Bush is passive in the face of a mortal threat to American citizens, he will need all the rhetorical skills of a Lincoln to restrain popular will for a proportionate counter-attack. Yes, there are exceptions - the nutcases in Berkeley, the crazed anti-Semites of the far left and right, the post-modern academics who have sinecures in anti-American humanities departments. But what has been amazing so far is how united this country still is, and how this mood, if anything, is strengthening. A Time magazine poll at the end of September found that 64 percent of the country was supportive of ground troops in Afghanistan. By last week, that percentage had grown to 71 percent. Support for the war has been increasing week after week, with now a full 89 percent of Americans behind it. A majority supports ground troops even if there are over 1,000 American casualties. Backing for Bush, a president who lost the popular vote less than a year ago, is at historically unprecedented levels. When a Zogby poll asked Americans last week whether they would rather have Clinton than Bush as president in this crisis, 72 percent backed Bush, compared to 20 percent who backed Clinton. This is a sea-change.

There are other signs. Each week, I get around a thousand emails to my website. But recently a new type has emerged: the left-liberal who has seen the light. "I am one of those Postmodern Lefties who has been going through a major reassessment of my ideas about a lot of things," wrote one. "This attack was quite a jolt to my consciousness, and I have to admit I feel pretty stupid for some of the ideas I felt so strongly about in the past. They are crumbling like a house of cards. I am becoming so conservative, so fast, I think I am getting the bends. Last week I baked brownies for the folks at our local Marine recruiting office." "The Vietnam war made me lean towards pacifism," another writes. "But the stronger pull for me, the stronger image, is the one that comes from so many books I've read in the last 25 years, and from many movies: That we in the West stood by while millions went to death camps. The same people who wept at "Schindler's List" and "Life is Beautiful" now want to split hairs over whether we are being judgmental when we call these people fascists. I'm beginning to lose friends over this. I tell them, "No. We can't agree to disagree. This is evil and we have to oppose it."" I don't believe that these people are isolated examples. You'd think by now that the flags everywhere would be dwindling in number, if only as a way to restore some sense of normality. But if anything, they seem to be growing in number across the country. Any walk down a suburban street is now a blur of golden leaves and red, white and blue.

Much of the left is now on board, from the increasingly hawkish American Prospect even to the irredentist left-wing organ, the Nation. The policy of that magazine has been changed from what was essentially pacifism to calibrating what a "just war" means. Even Susan Sontag has back-tracked, after arguing in the wake of the massacre that the murderers were morally superior to NATO pilots policing Northern Iraq. Interviewed by Salon magazine last week, she reiterated some of the inanities of her first response but felt obliged to add, "I want to make one thing very clear, because I've been accused of this by some critics. I do not feel that the Sept. 11 attacks were the pursuit of legitimate grievances by illegitimate means. I think that's the position of some people, but not me." She went on: "I think it truly is a jihad, I think there is such a thing. There are many levels to Islamic rage. But what we're dealing with here is a view of the U.S. as a secular, sinful society that must be humbled, and this has nothing to do with any particular aspect of American policy. In my view, there can be no compromise with such a vision. And, no, I don't think we have brought this upon ourselves, which is of course a view that has been attributed to me." Sontag's welcome comments remind me of Churchill's remark that Americans always do the right thing ... eventually. If the accelerating mood in America right now is any indication, that "eventually" may come a lot sooner than we think.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.