If you lost a relative to a terrorist act in Madrid or London, would you feel vindicated by the way the government dealt with the issue ? Can the relatives of 9/11 victims say the same ?
New York 9/11/2001
As Rove said Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war, so since the WH was in charge, the investigation of 9/11 was never a priority. Fewer than 10 suspects were found. Instead we got:
- Afghanistan war : 214 US fatalities to date
- Iraq war : 1,802 US fatalities to date
"Aftershocks" - Immediately after 9/11 five people died on the
2001 anthrax attacks The crime remains unsolved.
The other 2 cities recently targeted by terror dealt with the case quite differently
9/11 Investigation on the backburner
Complete 911 Timeline: Post-9/11 investigations: 2001
- September 13: White House Announces bin Laden-9/11 Connection
- September 18: 9/11 Grand Jury Convenes, Then Disappears
- October 11: Ashcroft Takes Over All Terrorist Prosecutions
- December 25: Experts: WTC Collapse Investigation Inadequate
- January 2002: 9/11 Flight Control Recording Completely Destroyed
Spain: 3/11/2004
911 days after 9/11, we got the
Madrid train bombings which killed 191 people. As of early April 2004:
- fifteen people arrested, seven more were detained in connection with the attacks
- two terrorists committed suicide while cornered by police
"Aftershocks" - An attempted bombing of the track of the high-speed AVE train took place on April 2 but was unsuccessful. Suspects were killed while surrounded by police on April 4th
London: 7/7/2005
2 months before the anniversary of 9/11 and coinciding with the G8 Global Meeting we had the London's public transport system bombings 56 people died in the attacks. But the UK police has:
"Aftershocks" - On 21 July 2005, a second series of explosions rocked the London Underground and a London bus. All 4 suspects arrested
So which approach works best ?
Spain has had no attacks since. Same for US. It is too soon to conclude the success of the London approach. But we can cite some figures
- Almost 8 years without attacks in US soil since the 26 February 1993 attack on the WTC, dealt with "law enforcement" and indictments by Clinton
- 24 years since The Baader Meinhof Gang has last attacked: A state economics minister was assassinated on May 11, 1981, as a revenge for his active role on pursuing the gang. Germany ended the gang's reign of terror with "law enforcement" approach.
- 1 week since Provisional Irish Republican Army has announced it is abandoning it's para-military operations in a war that it has been waging since 1969 against UK and for the reunification of Ireland. The sincerity of the withdraw is being questioned
Bottom line: WAR against terrorism can take more than 35 years to (maybe) resolve the problem. Law enforcement works much faster, and yields more permanent results
And after 2 years of failure the WH agrees War is not the answer
US shifts anti-terror policy The US is working with Britain and France to undermine the appeal of Muslim extremism by reaching out to moderate groups, in a sign that its counter-terrorism strategy is moving beyond the "war on terror".
US and European officials say the Bush administration's review--expected to lead to a formal declaration of a new national strategy--represents not just a shift to a more multilateralist approach towards foreign policy but also an important development in thinking away from the emphasis on the military.
So, "away from the military" - this is not a war anymore. Who made fun of John "this is primarily a matter of law enforcement" Kerry and the similarly minded Europeans?