Jay, AC: I didn't see Franks endorsing that response, just
predicting it. I infer he's not talking about a coup, but a public demand for less political governance and civil liberty, and more security-consciousness.
Sadly, I think his point is well taken, although I disagree we would shuck our grand experiment after one WMD attack. What would likely happen is a permanent change in public, executive, legislative and judicial attitudes toward the desirability and permissibility of
(1) admitting Muslims and Arabs into the U.S.;
(2) monitoring any potentially hostile persons and cargo or other delivery systems (broadly defined--or not defined at all) by any means necessary;
(3) shutting down many or even all mosques or other Muslim centers as enemy outposts;
(4) renouncing citizenship of, and evicting, Muslims already here; and
(5) preemptive nuclear strikes on the nuclear capacity of any Muslim state; and (if that does not prevent a repeat)
(6) destroying Muslim cities and holy places in retaliation and for prevention (i.e., specific deterrence).
It would be error to assume that a military takeover of the U.S. government will be necessary to the nation taking such steps. Instead, there would be a massive response of the body politic against which no politician could stand (and stay in office, unimpeached and alive), demanding the blood of the enemy that did the deed. Frustration would be great, given the nearly invisible enemy, and in that situation all or some of actions 1-5 above would unfold amid criticism of any less aggressive responses.
The problem for Muslims with Al Quaeda declaring jihad and being willing to murder thousands of innocents to change U.S. foreign policy is that Al Quaeda may succeed. They're just mistaken about what the new foreign policy will be. Then again, maybe they don't care how many of their compatriots die (see Allah early) in a U.S. response. They may, even now, imagine the U.S. will play by Marquis of Queensbury rules while they make WMD attacks on U.S. civilians. All they will do is convince the U.S. that it is seeing the Muslim version of a holy war.
The American people won't then blame U.S. foreign policy for the horror, and certainly won't (as Al Quaeda directs) abandon their predominantly Judeo-Christian religion. They will demand their government do what the old Crusaders did, but this time with less mercy, more broadly, and with far more devastating results. This will have nothing to do with Jesus and everything to do with revenge and survival.
The retaliatory response is engraved in the national psyche. Only Al Quaeda's (and others') avoidance of extreme provocation will prevent such a TEOTWAWKI event. The only people I see in a position to prevent such an eventuality are moderate, freedom-loving Arabs who inform on Al Quaeda to prevent it. I doubt that will happen. I expect most such persons can't bear to turn over their Muslim brothers to the U.S., and in any event imagine themselves safe from the U.S. response. If U.S. cities are destroyed, the U.S. will morph before their eyes.
None of this implies any endorsement of past or current U.S. foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. Current internal criticism of or reservations about our foreign policy would have absolutely no effect upon the national consensus about how to respond to a WMD attack. The response would be to rally 'round the flag, but no longer in a post-9/11 sort of way. The next time the flag being rallied 'round will be battle colors. |
