|
thers
have remarked the irony that we are enjoined to act as though the calendar
had traveled from September 10 to September 12, but that we should steel
ourselves against the likelihood of renewed terrorist activity. One dispatch
(Slate) remarks that the aircraft carrier USS Vinson is
in fact safer than any edifice on land. Before going on past the irony,
we are entitled to ask, What exactly is "suspicious activity"?
Because it is that, the FBI tells us, that we should "report."
This is no time for fun, but the challenge of defining suspicious activity
is inescapably funny. To run with the possibilities, is it suspicious
if your regular mailman, a dignified WASP of regular habits, is replaced
tomorrow by a young bearded Arab who wears a turban and is seen to have
dropped into the mailbox a package from which pink dust wafts into the
air? Let's improve that, and say that before inserting the package he
put on a gas mask, removing it only after he got back in the mail truck.
Okay. But then you come up with a suspicious activity of the kind
we are supposed to report. And along the way, reconcile the two commandments:
to be careful what we do, and to resume doing everything we did before
we took pains to do things only after ascertaining that nobody in sight
was engaged in mischief.
Much of the week was taken up in frantic worry over the possible beginning
of chemical warfare. Was it an anthrax "attack"? If so, what
were its ultimate designs? As the FBI helpfully asked, Who did it, and
when? If it is established that it was done by one of "his people,"
what are his reserves? And if the administration is telling us to be cautious
by stocking up on chemical pills, why not simply say that? If we are to
be careful about what we eat, where we buy our food, and how to establish
the purity of our water, shouldn't we learn how, and what rules should
be followed?
For those who looked for mischief of a different order, we have the extraordinary
pronouncement by President Bush that he would give a "second chance"
to the Taliban if it were to turn over to us Osama bin Laden. The first
reference was only to him, but Mr. Bush expanded that to bin Laden "and
his people." And then again, "his leaders and lieutenants and
other thugs and criminals with him." If the Taliban will cough them
up, they will be given a second chance. A second chance to do what? To
resume burying pregnant maidens alive? Granted, we are not there to impose
on the Afghanis our Bill of Rights, but we are there to uproot the network.
How does the administration
propose to establish that the Taliban has produced all of the relevant
thugs? It is ventured that the terrorist organization has redoubts in
60 nations. For the sake of convenience, let's say that's an exaggeration,
that in fact the terrorist lairs are in only a few close-by nations: Iran,
Libya, Iraq, Algeria, and Sudan. How is it proposed that the Taliban is
going to "cough them up"?
People do not march
gladly to their own execution, and it is perhaps because we know this
that Mr. Bush and indeed Britain's Tony Blair are saying
things on the order of the war lasting perhaps months, perhaps years.
What are we going to do for months and years of Taliban recalcitrance?
Increase the level of bombing? Land military rangers, with the mission
of locating bin Laden? And also "his people"?
Mr. Bush in on a rhetorical high wire. To hold out a hope transparently
illusory that the whole business could end in days, by having the
Taliban summon terrorists from all over the world to report to the hangman
is to enhance hopes that are not congruent with the kind of stamina
he otherwise calls for, and hopes that we are to experience along with
the fears the attorney general and the FBI are telling us about. Compressing
the hopes and fears, we are expected to fear that the Rose Bowl will blow
up during the first quarter, but that during the half, the band will perform
the 1812 Overture to celebrate the capitulation of the Taliban
and its friends.
|