June 12, 2002

Dirty Bomb Backlash! There has

Dirty Bomb Backlash!

There has been some backtracking by administration honchos about the seriousness of the Jose Padilla's "dirty bomb" threat. Ashcroft "overstated" the dirty bomb danger, as this USA Today report puts it, quoting Paul Wolfowitz: "I don't think there was actually a plot beyond some fairly loose talk and (Al Muhajir's) coming in here obviously to plan further deeds." And of course commentators of a certain persuasion have joined in triumphant chorus to accuse the administration of shameless cynicism and perfidy.

"Forget the dirty bomb," says Brendan O'Neill; "this looks more like dirty tactics from the Bush administration." Tapped happily delivers a "told you so" homily, calling the whole affair "the dirty bomber scam." Maureen Dowd doubts a "street punk" like Padilla was the "big fish" he was initially cracked up to be, and questions, with some justification, whether such a lowly character would have "had the brains, know-how and materials to build a dirty bomb from scratch." O'Neill takes this line of thinking still further:

This looks like a slightly more serious version of arresting and detaining children for writing stories about shooting their teachers-- the likelihood of either happening is slim to non-existent. Padilla seemed to be engaged in little more than a fantasy, which the rest of us are only too happy to treat as a potential reality that the great guys at the FBI and the CIA managed to foil.

The government's attempts to spin the story to its advantage, as well as critics' charges of inappropriateness and feigned shock that anyone would do such a thing, are all just politics as usual, of course. No one should be surprised; and I daresay practically nobody actually is surprised. Politically, what is most striking is how quickly, effortlessly and completely some Democrats and their journo-partisans have stepped into the role the Republicans played during the Clinton presidency, obsessing over the minutiae of the conduct of political stagecraft, aghast at the public's lack of outrage, unable to grasp that concerns about the appropriateness of political gestures or photo opportunities are of extremely low rank on the public's list of priorities. Fulminating against the scandal of opportunistically-timed announcements isn't likely to resonate much more than exposing "cover-ups" of extra-marital affairs. Everyone knows what's going on here. Did Ashcroft "hype" the dirty bomb angle to grab headlines and make himself look good? Would the administration prefer that the media focus be on the one they caught rather than the ones that got away? Might they have exaggerated the significance of Padilla, and might they hope to use the story to their advantage in current and future political battles? Duh. (Believe it or not, Clinton hoped to avoid impeachment by lying about his girlfriend, too.) Maybe Jose Padilla is unlikely to have managed a successful radiological attack. I imagine most people are just glad they caught him before he could attempt any kind of attack. Woe to the Democrats if they really attempt to run on a "let's not detain quite so many terrorist suspects" platform.

The questions about political maneuvering are legitimate, of course, as are questions about the substance of the accusation against Padilla and about what kind of danger he represents. The weird thing is how observations on these matters somehow lead, in some quarters, to the conclusion that Padilla posed no real threat at all and even that he ought not to have been detained. Brendan O'Neill is surely wrong in saying that he is no more dangerous than a kid who fantasizes about killing his teacher: most such children are not members of international terrorist organizations which have launched attacks that have killed thousands.

How dangerous is Padilla? Curiously, some (Dowd, for example) have pointed to his rap sheet and record as a small-time violent criminal as an indication of a lack of capability as a bomber. A guy like this, the reasoning goes, is obviously too stupid and unsophisticated to build and detonate a radiological device. As Dack puts it: "he couldn't even spell bomb, let alone make one." Most amusing, but I'm not convinced. He may or may not be stupid, but I don't see how Dack knows one way or the other. Anyhow, it's not that difficult to build a bomb. Idiots build them all the time. Radioactive material isn't that hard to come by either, apparently. Whether or not any radiological element of a bomb made by a widely-recognized idiot would "work" is another question: but I'd prefer not to be blown up at all, radiation or not.

Stupid people can do a lot of damage. The fact that Richard Reid was a pretty dim bulb would have been small comfort to his fellow passengers if he had somehow managed to set his shoes alight. Not every Islamikaze who blows himself up in a public place is an Einstein; I'd wager that few of them are geniuses. That doesn't stop the IDF from trying to get them before they strike. Nor should it. ( And don't forget that many of them have help. Did Padilla have associates like that?)

The question of whether or not Padilla's bomb would have been sufficiently "dirty" isn't the most important thing here. I'm more interested in the fact that this might be an indication of bin Ladenite networks and structures in the US. We always hear about "terrorist cells" and so forth, but very little of it comes to surface. Why haven't the FBI managed to root out and identify more people like Padilla? Is al Qaeda's continuing presence in the US a scare-mongering fabrication as well (as some have charged)? Padilla is one example to the contrary, at least. You want an angle from which to attack Bush's management of "homeland security?" Don't complain about Ashcroft's timing or downplay Padilla's significance or speculate about his low IQ. Focus on why they haven't nabbed more like him.

Posted by Dr. Frank at June 12, 2002 07:21 PM | TrackBack