(Long Island, NY) It’s finally happened. The crude bomb detonated outside the Times Square recruiting station has brought this country full circle back to the 1960s, if only symbolically. For those of you who do not remember, a bit of history:
The late 60s anti-war movement in America received major setbacks due to the ill-advised activities of groups like the Weather Underground, who believed in “direct action” protest. In October of 1969, one of the most publicized Weather Underground acts involved a five-day violence spree known as the “Days of Rage”. The violence began with the detonation of a statue in Chicago’s Haymarket Square. When the violence ended, six Weathermen had been shot by police, and 70 people had been arrested.
This all happened before police pressure sent the group into hiding, when they were still known simply as “The Weathermen” in reference to a Bob Dylan lyric musing, “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.” The Weathermen became the Weather Underground after going into hiding to plot more violent protests.
Violent protest against the war, and against what many believed was U.S. imperialism in Vietnam and elsewhere, did much to grab the media’s attention, but did nothing but hurt many legitimate organizations trying to protest the war without resorting to violence.
Now we’ve come full circle. The bombing of the Times Square recruiting station is a direct throwback to this sort of thing. The incident—at least in my mind—is clearly the behavior of someone who is against the war and wants to say so, very loudly.
It’s true that the authorities are treating this as an act of terrorism, but I’d like to point out a few pertinent facts based on my experience with anti-terrorism training programs, the way the military identifies legitimate acts of terrorism, and the hallmarks of violent amateur protests.
Could the Times Square attack be terrorist-related? There are only two possibilities here. The first is that a lone person or small group has taken it upon themselves to do acts of terrorism. They have no training, very little experience, and are acting out in the only ways they know how. This type of behavior is much like the Weather Underground and these people will eventually suffer the same kinds of fates; death by accidental detonation of crude homemade devices in their hideouts, shot by police, or arrested.
The other possibility is that the Times Square attack is a legitimate act of terror, but what is considered a “dry run”. In defense circles this activity is well known. Terrorists will try small acts using expendable members of their group to test the reactions to a wide range of activities. If this WAS a terrorist dry run, those in charge of the group now understand a great deal of what to expect when a similar event is attempted on a larger scale.
What leads me to believe this is the work of an amateur is simple. The device was crude and ineffective, and the delivery time came when there would be no appreciable injuries to people in the area. This seems to be the work of someone who wants to make a symbolic protest, but one that is much more attention-grabbing than the typical peace march or “die-in”.
Terrorists—the ones who have given their lives to violence on a more full-time basis—take the time to research their targets, examine issues such as when to explode a bomb for maximum fear and chaos. They don’t just load up a crude device and pedal downtown. These acts are carefully planned. Granted—the same sort of planning could be done by an amateur who wants to scare—but not hurt—a large number of people. But their actions are misguided and they are hurting their cause, not helping it.
Nobody I know wants the war in Afghanistan or Iraq to continue one more day. I think we can all agree that having our men and women in uniform coming home in body bags or with missing limbs is NOT what we want. But the way to end this thing is not to bring suspicion and fear against all legitimate protest groups by using violence. Every time anti-war activity gets violent, it causes the authorities to react against ANY group they deem capable of possibly giving in to the temptation to let their peaceful work take a turn towards direct action.
If I am right about this incident in Times Square being an anti-war protest, it’s bad news for people who are organized to speak out against the war in legitimate ways. Bombings and violence hurt the real peace activists. There are records a mile long of FBI attempts not only to infiltrate, but also to agitate and encourage protest groups, leftist newspapers, and hippie communities into taking direct action. They did this to build cases, to attempt to ferret out people who believed in direct action. But it was wrong. The word “entrapment” springs to mind. Law enforcement is NOT the devil—not on a per-person basis. But the activities of any organization are subject to the influence of an overzealous few. This is not the voice of a conspiracy nut; this is my reading of actual history and accounts by those who were there. Do I expect real peace outfits to be targeted by the Department of Homeland Security? Yes. If the violence continues, I fully expect it.
Folks, we do NOT need violence to protest the war. But with the Times Square attack on that recruiting station comes the potential for us to repeat all the mistakes of the 60s all over again. Our government over its short history has shown a propensity to over-react in certain circumstances. Do we really want another go-round, 60s style? No, we don’t.
But I fear we’re headed that way nonetheless. Thanks to guys like the one on the bike who rode past that recruiting station.
