British Response Is Measured, Almost Serene

When Al Qaeda struck the United States on Sept. 11, the response was immediate and visceral. Led by President Bush, Americans were angry and determined to hold those responsible to account. In less than a month, the United States had launched a war in Afghanistan.

When bombers struck in Spain last year, the Spanish people also were galvanized. Within days, they had ousted a conservative, pro-American prime minister and elected a leftist administration that immediately pulled Spanish troops out of Iraq.

By comparison, after the worst terrorist attack ever on British soil, this country’s response has been almost preternaturally calm and measured, almost serene.

Prime Minister Tony Blair set the tone from the moment the news of Thursday’s multiple bombings on the London transit system spread: Britain would not be cowed, Britain would carry on as usual, and Britain would not allow the attacks to divide its people.

“We will hold by our spirit and dignity and by a quiet and true strength that is in the British people that our values will long outlast theirs,” he said within hours of the attacks, speaking from Downing Street.

So far at least, there has been almost no public discussion of a need to alter government foreign or domestic policy or to take more draconian measures to crack down on extremists. The signals emanating from Blair and his Cabinet ministers are that the government will continue with its current strategies, and absorb any other terrorist attacks if they occur as part of the price of remaining British.

The message of resilience has been picked up by nearly everybody, from Queen Elizabeth II, visiting injured survivors Friday, to London Mayor Ken Livingstone, once called “Red Ken” for his anti-establishment views.

Livingstone addressed the attackers directly, saying, “Where freedom is strong and people can live in harmony, whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.”

In part, the measured response reflects a society that was already inured to attacks, and had been warned by its leaders to expect more.

In Britain during the Blitz, 40,000 people were killed by German bombs. During the 1970s, ‘80s and ‘90s, the Irish Republican Army regularly set lethal explosives in British cities. And the Sept. 11 attack in New York claimed 67 British lives, a higher toll so far than that of this week’s bombings. And with its imperial past, this country is also used to the idea -- so shocking to Americans on Sept. 11 -- that some people will always hate it.

On top of that, even Blair’s critics don’t appear to want to give the attackers any moral satisfaction.

So far, the prime minister’s calm resolution has won plaudits and struck a chord with the public, and there has been little recrimination against the government for failing to prevent the bombings or for Blair’s stance on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which a militant website claimed were the motive for the attack. In May elections in which Blair’s Labor Party lost ground in parliament, many disaffected voters cited the prime minister’s decision to join President Bush in invading Iraq.

“It is hard to put a finger on what the British reaction is, but it seems to be considerably more phlegmatic,” said Patrick Dunleavy, a political scientist at the London School of Economics.

So far, there have been only a few murmurings of discontent that the terrorist alert level was lowered at a time when the country was playing host to the world’s most powerful leaders, he said. At the grass-roots level, some people have complained about drawing off police resources to protect the Group of 8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, from anti-capitalist protesters.

“It sort of smacks of leaders defending themselves but not defending ordinary Londoners. I think there will be some discussions along those lines” next week, Dunleavy said.

Magnus Ranstorp, an international relations instructor at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, said that Britain’s counter-terrorism strategy long has been focused on prevention but that it also revolves around resilience, “to make London more able to bounce back quickly after an attack.”

Part of that strategy is not to let terrorist attacks divide the community, or lead to any kind of vigilantism, he said.

“There were measured statements by the prime minister, there were measured statements by Parliament, there was a measured statement by Ken Livingstone,” he said. “Londoners are particularly used to ... stoically responding in an apolitical and measured way, at least so far, and hopefully that will remain the case.”

The populist, right-wing newspaper the Sun was a rare exception to the mild tone Friday. It called for a far tougher British policy in dealing with “suspected terrorists” in the country and urged creation of internment camps for “this enemy in our midst.”

“In the name of New York, Washington, Bali, Nairobi, Madrid and now London, we shall have vengeance and justice,” the paper thundered. “If the terrorists want a fight, by God we’ll give it them.”

At the other end of the political spectrum, antiwar member of Parliament George Galloway of the Respect Party said Londoners had “paid the price” for Blair’s decision to go to war in Iraq and urged the government to take the British people out of harm’s way by withdrawing from Iraq. His remarks, however, drew instant condemnation.

Some political analysts believe that the issue of Britain’s involvement in Iraq will inevitably come in for criticism after the shock of the attacks wears off.

The Spectator, a conservative weekly, said in an editorial on its website that involvement in Iraq no doubt increased the risk of terrorism, but that “does not for one moment mean that if Britain had not been involved in Iraq, then London would have been safe.”

“It bears repeating that more British people died in the attacks on the World Trade Center than in yesterday’s brutal outrages, and it must never be forgotten that 9/11 preceded the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan, as did the series of vicious Islamicist bombings in Paris in the 1990s,” the editorial stated.

In contrast to the United States and Spain, the Daily Telegraph observed in an editorial, “The London bombings signal no ... dramatic change; rather an intensification of what has already been agreed. Yesterday was a dark day for London.... But there was much in its reaction from which to draw strength for the long and bitter battle ahead.”