I was walking this afternoon to the Washington studio of American Public Radio’s Marketplace to record a commentary. As I approach Farragut Square, foot traffic is suddenly halted by yellow tape. I jostle my way forward to see the problem.
At the northwest corner of the square – K and Connecticut intersection – is a stopped white van. Its back doors have been flung open. On one side of the van is written the word “HELP!” in big red letters. I can’t see the other side. I ask a policeman. He says the other side said “BOMB.” They took that as a bomb threat and closed the city half a dozen city blocks.
Of course that was the only thing to do. Only … I remember there was a time in my life when we all worried about a dirty bomb in downtown DC. Somehow it seemed that when the bomb arrived, it would arrive in less ridiculous form.
As for me, I backed up, walked north, west, then south again, and slipped into the Marketplace building through a back door.
* * *
Here’s a local news update on what had happened before I came on the scene:
The intersection of Connecticut Avenue NW and K Street NW was closed Tuesday after a man protesting an injustice by the government threw two Molotov cocktails.
Just before 2 p.m., witnesses say the man pulled into the intersection, got out of his van and lit two fire bombs before throwing them into the street. He then climbed on top of the van and unfurled his sign.
As dozens gathered to watch, police asked him to step down. He refused, telling officers they would have to come up after him.
For several minutes he just stood there as onlookers took pictures with their cell phones and Blackberrys.
A professionally-made sign attached to the van said ‘My $200 Million Dollars’.
20 responses so far
1 ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 5:28 pm
……It’s a by product of American hysteria old man whipped up by the GOP (Ridge, crank up the orange alert today it’s the election tomorrow) and the media who feast on this bs(how many thousands have died from swine flu today) ………I’m all for sensible protective measures at the airports and so on but when we start running in 5 year olds for having wolf cub three part knife/fork/spoon sets you have to know this country has totally lost it’s mind……the danger in it all is that it breeds complacency because ultimately people become unable to distinguish between the real and the phony threats so they just tune everything out
2 BarryS // Nov 24, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Have to agree, I lived in the UK during the worst of the IRA atrocities. The city I lived in was bombed almost on a weekly basis. Did the city grind to a halt. No we just got on with our lives. We were careful but stoic. I am constantly amazed at the fear in this country over something infinitely less a threat. Before you flame me let me explain.
We are up against a small enemy, it’s bigger than it was on 9/11 but still small. They are also weak. The chances of you getting killed by a terror plot are infinitesimal especially if you live anywhere other than NY or Washington. Yet we allow this remote possibility to rule our lives (well some of us). So time to chill somewhat.
To do anything else is to give the terrorists the victory they want.
3 ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 6:31 pm
BarryS // Nov 24, 2009 at 6:28 pm
” Have to agree, I lived in the UK during the worst of the IRA atrocities”
…….I was actually present with wife and two kids in 1975 I think it was was the IRA let off a bomb at an exhibition in London…..about 7 killed as I remember…….people were amazingly calm
4 sinz54 // Nov 24, 2009 at 6:42 pm
BarryS:
Brits got used to being bombed out of existence in two World Wars.
The United States had not been bombed on its mainland in either World War. (The Pearl Harbor attack, which provoked America into waging wars on six continents, was an attack on Hawaii, which wasn’t even a state at the time.) Unlike Europe, America emerged from World War II virtually unscathed on its home front.
America had not been invaded since 1812.
The 9-11 attack scared the pants off of Americans–because such a thing had never happened to America in the memories of anyone living.
For every nation, there is a first time.
The first strategic bombings–by Zeppelins!–of London took place in World War I. Only a few Londoners were killed. But that attack, showing that the heart of the British Empire could be bombed at will from the air, scared the pants off of Londoners too.
Basically, after two world wars, Brits got used to dying.
We Americans still have not.
Benjimin Netanyahu summed it up perfectly: In any war against terrorism, your civilians are going to be targets of terrorists, effectively soldiers on the front lines. And in such a war, as in any other war, your forces have to learn how to take casualties.
5 sinz54 // Nov 24, 2009 at 6:46 pm
BarryS:
I also believe that the Irish Republican Army knew just how far to push its campaign. Had the IRA bombed Westminster Abbey and killed 3,000 Londoners in one blow, I very much doubt that the Brits would have just “gone on with their lives.” Most likely, Margaret Thatcher would have retaliated in kind.
The U.S. had not retaliated with war after the first WTC bombing (six killed), or the U.S.S. Cole bombing (17 killed, though an attack on a navy warship is arguably an act of war). But 3,000 dead in one blow (and in those first days, it was feared the death toll could go much higher) is just too much to turn the other cheek about.
For just 2,000 dead at Pearl Harbor, the U.S. declared war on FIVE countries (can you name all five?), built the mightiest war machine in history, waged war on six continents, fire-bombed enemy cities into raging firestorms, and topped everything by building and using the first nuclear weapons in combat.
Did we overreact to that attack as well?
6 ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 6:48 pm
sinz54 // Nov 24, 2009 at 6:42 pm
……Sinz we over react to EVERYTHING…….which is why we have these messes on our hands in Iraq and Afghanistan…….much of it is the consequence of Republican fear mongering for political advantage aided and abetted by the media who are completely hysterical much of the time……plus the American psyche is a rich ground upon which to so the seeds of fear…….you only had to see the vast svine flu lines
7 ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 6:53 pm
sinz54 // Nov 24, 2009 at 6:46 pm
” Most likely, Margaret Thatcher would have retaliated in kind.’
……What was she going to do…….shoot all the IRA prisoners in custody…..bomb the Falls Road…… Bomb Dublin…..they almost knocked her off for godsake…..no one is suggesting turning the other cheek…..you apparently can only think in binary terms…….is this how you listen to tv…..max sound or mute?
8 ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 7:03 pm
sinz54 // Nov 24, 2009 at 6:46 pm
” Most likely, Margaret Thatcher would have retaliated in kind.’
……Using the Taliban metaphor maybe she should have bombed Boston which is where a lot of IRA money came from…..you never sent the wild colonial boys a few bucks did you Sinz?…..or how about bombing the Kennedy compound at Hyannis?
9 BarryS // Nov 24, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Sinz, you are right. 9/11 was a shock to the american psyche. but should we allow that day to effect us for ever? Terrorists terrorize to promote fear. Fear produces irrational reaction. That leads to unthinking retaliation which leads to more terrorists. It’s a vicious circle.
And that vicious circle is exactly what they want. It’s the only way they can build momentum for their quest. The Brits learned a great deal about fighting terrorists in Aden,Cyprus and elsewhere. They could teach us a great deal and did a lot better in Iraq that we did in winning hearts and minds.
I am no pacifist and nothing would please me more than to see Bin Laden’s head on a spike at the WTC ground zero. To fight terrorists you have to fight smart, we tend to fight them as though we are still fighting WW2
10 balconesfault // Nov 24, 2009 at 8:05 pm
For just 2,000 dead at Pearl Harbor, the U.S. declared war on FIVE countries
Not really accurate. The US responded to Pearl Harbor by declaring war on Japan.
Hitler and Mussolini had signed mutual defense pacts with Japan, and immediately declared war on the US. Roosevelt received Germany and Italy’s declarations, and responded with a call to Congress to declare war on those two nations. Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Albania, and Croatia all declared war on the US in the next couple days, Thailand followed suit a month later, in January.
The US took their time, but in June got around to declaring war on Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania.
Meanwhile, the puppet government in China declared war on the US in January of ‘43, and Burma declared war on us in August of that year.
So if you’re keeping score, 12 countries declared war on the US, and we bothered to declare war back on 6 of them. Why Bulgaria and not Albania? Eh.
But it is inaccurate to say that we declared war on Germany because of Pearl Harbor. We declared war against Germany because they declared war on us first.
11 Reason60 // Nov 24, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Sinz raises some good points, but there are some valid differences:
In 1939, the US Army was very small, and weak; I think we had less military power than Albania, if I read right.
Germany and Japan raised huge conventional armies, on the reasonable premise that their conventional forces could defeat our conventional forces. We built our conventional war machine specifically to fight theirs. The French for instance, had lost that ability; so they set about a guerilla campaign of bombings and assasination- what we would call terrorism.
Al-Quaida knew they could never confront our conventional forces; so they used terrorism as the only viable tactic. The COIN strategy is to avoid the “asymmetrical war”- to avoid repeating the mistakes of Vietnam where we used a conventional army against a guerilla campaign.
I think AQ needs to be confronted and defeated; I am just not convinced our current campaign will work.
12 BarryS // Nov 24, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Reason said.
“Al-Quaida knew they could never confront our conventional forces; so they used terrorism as the only viable tactic. The COIN strategy is to avoid the “asymmetrical war”- to avoid repeating the mistakes of Vietnam where we used a conventional army against a guerilla campaign.
I think AQ needs to be confronted and defeated; I am just not convinced our current campaign will work.”
You are 100% right, you cant fight these people using conventional war. The problem is our military high command seem to be still geared to fight the Cold war Soviets.
In this sort of “dirty” war you use the tactics of the enemy, you fight in short bursts with surprise attacks using good intelligence. I am sure we are doing that in part. However we are also using big armed forces which then tend to be easy targets for an insurgent force to attack.
I was watching a film the other note of the war of independence. Originally the militia was used the same way as the normal foot soldiers, They basically marched toward the enemy engaged and it was a crap shoot with horrible losses. Then they got smart and fought an insurgent campaign. It worked.
13 hormelmeatco // Nov 24, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Terrorism is theater. 9/11 had the effect it did because millions of people saw it on TV. Would have been the same whether it was 300 instead of 3,000 killed.
14 Churl // Nov 25, 2009 at 12:01 am
As otto points out, this is yet another Glenn Beck inspired atrocity, like the killing of Bill Sparkman, the Kentucky census worker.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091124/ap_on_re_us/us_census_worker_hanged;_ylt=Ag4n3Lx7LlTF8W9tixB55VqzvtEF;_ylu=X3oDMTJxMWJvN2NmBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMTI0L3VzX2NlbnN1c193b3JrZXJfaGFuZ2VkBGNwb3MDNwRwb3MDNwRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA3BvbGljZWt5Y2Vucw
15 Churl // Nov 25, 2009 at 12:02 am
Gah! sorry about the appearance of that last URL. Apologies; I won’t do that again.
16 BoolaBoola // Nov 25, 2009 at 5:37 am
If the War on Terror were still on, we would respond to this by … bombing Iran.
17 sinz54 // Nov 25, 2009 at 9:42 am
ottovbs:
Don’t laugh.
If the IRA had killed thousands in a single blow in Britain, Thatcher would have demanded that the U.S. crack down on NORAID, which fulfilled the same role for the IRA that CAIR does for the Muslim Brotherhood: NORAID masqueraded as a charity, but in reality was a front for terrorists. (The local talk-shows here in Boston used to deconstruct NORAID, but the politicians didn’t listen.) And the President (Clinton or Bush) would have acceded to her demand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAID
And Thatcher would certainly have called out the British army to invest Northern Ireland in force. There’s no way a Prime Minister of Britain could look past an attack of a size comparable to 9-11.
18 sinz54 // Nov 25, 2009 at 9:48 am
Reason60:
There’s no doubt our current campaign won’t achieve the GOAL of keeping America safe from terrorist attack.
It is estimated that 5-10% of Muslims are of the radical fundamentalist variety. And there are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. Do the math. That gives al-Qaeda a pool of at least 65 million Muslims to draw from, to bamboozle and scam into becoming terrorists. With a pool that large, we could be fighting terrorists for 500 years and never finish.
We have to turn off this tap once and for all. I regard the way al-Qaeda sucks young Muslim men into terrorism as analogous to the way that drug pushers suck young men into drug addiction. And we have to deal with it in the same way: Education at a young age; Propaganda campaigns; involving Muslim parents; community action; etc.
During the Cold War, when I was in junior high school, we kids were required to study Das Kapital and other Marxist works. The reason was you had to KNOW YOUR ENEMY, and not be bamboozled by Commie lies. Our teachers taught us the lies and fallacies of Communism.
We haven’t done anything like that for the War on Terror. Our people remain largely ignorant of the enemy we’re fighting.
19 Raider1 // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:15 am
Otto4…but for your boiler plate terror-alert election conspiracy theory bs (do you REALLY believe that? Does Ott01-3 believe that too?) you actually make some good points about the constant “crisis” mode this country seems to be in. Hate to tell you though, it is fueled by a predominantly LIBERAL media.
20 Raider1 // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:16 am
Otto…how would YOU Have handled things if you were president on 9/12/2001?
You must log in to post a comment.