ANDREW SULLIVAN - Even Susan Sontag is on the warpath

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Current News - Homefront Preparations : One Thread

Times, UK

Even Susan Sontag is on the warpath

Americans crossed a Rubicon last 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 learnt that "weapons grade" is better understood as genetically modified anthrax that is immune to antibiotics, and the powder that more than 30 Senate staffers were exposed to was the more treatable variety.

At that point, Washingtonians gave up a huge sigh of relief. It may have been a biological weapon, but it wasn't a really deadly one. Phew.

The atmosphere in DC is jittery but not panic-stricken. In the bars, congressional workers were joking 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 down the House of Representatives for a few days. "WIMPS" was the headline in the New York Post.

Then it sank 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. Even Muammar Gadaffi condemned the anthrax attack last week as a "cowardly, evil and irresponsible action putting in danger the whole of humanity".

We now know for sure something we strongly suspected before: 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.

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. Now Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, has pointedly refused to rule out such action if American citizens are targeted.

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 citizens are subjected to chemical and biological warfare. 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 its initial caution and scepticism about the anthrax attacks is a natural desire not to have to face this hideous decision yet.

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 highly possible is not the rashness of the Bush administration, which remains almost surrealistically calm and measured.

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 postmodern 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% of the country was supportive of using ground troops in Afghanistan. By last week, that had grown to 71%.

Support for the war has been increasing week after week, with now a full 89% of Americans behind it. A majority supports ground troops even if there are over 1,000 American casualties.Backing for Bush is at historically unprecedented levels.

There are other signs. You'd think by now that the flags everywhere would be dwindling in number, if only 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.

Each week I get about 1,000 e-mails 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 a jolt to my consciousness. 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."

This is not a lone voice. Much of the left is now on board, from the increasingly hawkish American Prospect 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. Last week she said: "I don't feel that the attacks were the pursuit of legitimate grievances by illegitimate means."

She went on: "I think it truly is a jihad. There are many levels to Islamic rage. But what we're dealing with here is a view of the United States as a secular, sinful society that must be humbled. 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."

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

-- Anonymous, October 21, 2001


Moderation questions? read the FAQ