New Republic, Oct. 15
The fall books issue. … An article rips Colin Powell and his allies for “forfeiting America’s capacity to respond effectively to the attacks of September 11.” Powell favors a measured response that would preserve the coalition of countries forged during the Gulf War and ensure Afghanistan’s “stability”—and, contrary to press reports, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney agree. But coalition-tending will limit what kind of military action America can take. Further, the author asks, will sparing the Taliban stabilize one of the “the least stable countries on Earth”? … The “TRB”column chides the administration for “selling out Chechnya.” During the campaign, George W. Bush wanted to withhold foreign aid until the Russians ended Europe’s most brutal war. Now, to gain Russian intelligence against Osama Bin Laden, the U.S. must temporarily “lower its voice about the Chechen war, but eventually, it must raise it again.”—B.C.
Economist, Oct. 6 The cover article hopes America can do what it has failed to do in Iraq: Win the propaganda war. So far, the Bush administration gets pretty high marks, but the real test will be how long the United States can keep international opinion on its side. … A piece rehashes the history of Israeli-American relations and concludes that U.S. support for the Jewish state has not been as one-sided and excessive as many claim. … A piece wonders whether Russia’s newfound friendliness toward the West can really last. … An article maintains that the anti-war movement is unlikely to spread from college campuses to the public at large, as it did during Vietnam. “The true comparison is not with 1969, but with 1939.”— J.F.
Harper’s, October 2001 A diary by the former New York Times Middle East bureau chief documents the horrid conditions inside the Gaza Strip. “It was in Gaza,” he writes “that I came to know the dark side of the Israeli Defense Force.” “I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport.”… An essay explains how, in every age, dinosaurs have been a “projection of the nationalist psyche of the United States.” For example, the friendly plastic dinosaurs of the 1950s spoke to the nation’s post-war domestication. The lean, mean, and brainy raptors of Jurassic Park, however, represented the new-economy capitalists of the early ‘90s.— J.F.
New York Times Magazine, Oct. 7 The cover story offers a cautionary tale on government surveillance. In 1994, after IRA bombs rocked London’s financial district, the British government installed public surveillance cameras. But instead of thwarting serious crimes, the cameras had odd effects on behavior: Rowdy teen-agers are permanently banned from malls; a gay man no longer kisses his boyfriend in public; even law-abiding ex-cons trigger the system’s alarms. To embrace such technology in America, even after Sept. 11, would sacrifice our promise of an open society. … A piece argues that the war against Osama Bin Laden is a religious war—not one of Islam versus Christianity and Judaism but one of fundamentalism versus faiths “at peace with freedom and modernity.” “We are fighting for religion,” the author writes, “against one of the deepest strains in religion there is.”—B.C.
Time and Newsweek, Oct. 8
The magazines assess the threat of a biological or chemical attack on American soil. An expert warns Newsweek that a biological attack is “highly likely.” But while acquiring anthrax or bubonic plague is relatively easy, turning the pathogen into a powder and then dispersing it is not—thus, the mag says, such an attack is “highly improbable in the near term.” The feds, taking no chances, secretly installed detectors in Washington, D.C.’s Metro system. A Time poll says 53 percent of Americans fear a biological or chemical attack. There’s not a large enough supply of the smallpox virus to make it a feasible weapon. Anthrax is more widely available but tough to disperse. Sarin, the nerve gas used in the 1995 attack on the Tokyo subway, is “easy to acquire and stockpile” but suitable only for a small-scale attack. (Click here to read Slate’s take on why the anthrax vaccine is in such short supply.) … A Time article details the strategy of special forces troops in Afghanistan. Since the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings, Army commandos have burrowed in caves by day and used pilotless radar planes at night to conduct reconnaissance. Now they await airstrikes to drive the enemy out of hiding. … A Newsweek piece reveals that when the Bush administration drew up its list of international organizations with ties to terrorism, it left three names off. Why the omissions? The Saudi government, a U.S. ally, directly funded two; another’s board included the Pakistani president.— B.C.
To try four issues of Time magazine for free, click here.
U.S. News & World Report, Oct. 8 A piece suggests that the U.S. must install new rulers in Afghanistan if the Taliban falls. But who? The opposition Northern Alliance—dogged by “credible reports of summary executions, torture, and looting”—failed to hold together a coalition when it ruled the country briefly in 1996. Pakistan fears the Taliban’s exit will reduce its own influence in Afghanistan. … An article catalogs misspent federal dollars that could have helped prevent the Sept. 11 attacks. This year, Congress allocated $10 billion for counterterrorism measures—yet the FBI couldn’t read important documents because it had few Arabic, Farsi, or Pashto translators. In 1996, Congress created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, charged with deporting terrorists from the U.S, but no terrorists have been removed because the Justice Department has yet to file a case.—B.C.
The New Yorker, Oct. 8 An article says the modern CIA is full of lazy, PC wusses. The operatives who used to be in charge of dirty tricks have been handcuffed by prohibitions on kidnappings and the use of unsavory informants. But things may change. Director George Tenet probably won’t survive the year. And one of the resurrected old guard says: “Are we serious about getting rid of the problem—instead of sitting around making diversity quilts?”… A piece remembers William Feehan, 71, first deputy commissioner of the New York Fire Department who died when the World Trade Center collapsed on him. A 42-year veteran, his toughness, his commitment, and his longevity were representative of the firehouse culture. The good news: His wife used to tell the kids, “I hope your father goes in a fire.” The less good news: His daughter thinks he would say about his death, “I’m not a hero—a wall fell on me. How does that make me a hero?”— J.D.
WeeklyStandard, Oct. 8
Fred Barnes’ cover piece explains how Bush feels he has found his God-ordained calling in fighting terrorism. One consequence of this new sense of destiny is that Bush has become far less deferential to his aides. … An article scorns Edward Said specifically and post-colonial theory in general. As Said has watched his dream of an alliance between Western liberalism and Arab nationalism crumble with the World Trade Center, he has turned to the same “Orientalist” language he’s spent his career attacking. For example, he recently derided the terrorists for their “primitive” ideas, “magical thinking,” and “lying religious claptrap.” … An article argues against both generous industry handouts and Keynesian spending in the wake of the terrorist attacks. Instead, Washington should cut the payroll tax.—J.F.
The Nation, Oct. 18
An article labels the Sept. 11 attacks an example of “blowback,” a term used to describe the unintended consequences of America’s secret “imperial projects.” Osama Bin Laden is just one in a long line of CIA “assets,” including Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein, who have turned against us. But “blowback” can be avoided by reigning in our “rampant militarism.” … Four dispatches (six online) from across the globe assess foreign reactions to the terrorist attacks. … A piece reviews the dangerous Chapter 11 of NAFTA, which allows investors to sue a national government if their company’s assets—or even expected profits—are injured by regulations of any kind. The upshot of Chapter 11 is that NAFTA arbitrators can effectively limit regulation by forcing governments to pay huge sums to the companies they’re affecting.—J.F.
