The Impact of Timothy McVeigh

Riveted by the presentation of the Timothy McVeigh audio tapes by MSNBC, a small selection of some 44 hours worth of material collected in an interview with Lou Michel, co-author of the only authorized biography of McVeigh, American Terrorist (2001), over a four day period. Apparently, the tapes were just authorized to be released to the public. I haven't read the book but have read many like it. Know the type and style. They're written too quickly for the market without any real thought put into them.

I was drawn to the actual voice of McVeigh: the explanations, the reasonings, the justifications, the world-view, the belief system, the morality. He was well read and eloquent. I vaguely remember the Oklahoma City Bombing. I was watching the news with my grandmother in Tennessee and asked her why someone would ever do something like that? I do not believe he had been apprehended at the time. Of course, she didn't really have an answer for me. And it took me a long time to develop one.

Looking back on it now, the 90's was rife with anti-government movements, militias, constitutional fundamentalists, wild individuals and groups in places like Texas, Michigan and Montana, who believed, in essence, that the abstract, nameless, bureaucratic "government" wielded more power than the citizen, that citizen's rights, guaranteed in the Constitution, were not being honored or recognized. The government had abused its privilege and breached the contract; it no longer fulfilled its purpose. And, according to one of its own clauses, was to be discarded, for a better, more practical vision.

A revolution was in order for hardliners like McVeigh.

I had not realized that he was a decorated veteran of the first Gulf War; he was working independently (he had help from two friends, but was not a part of any kind of organization); the bomb he made was a sophisticated innovation, not some goofy contraption, as was depicted in the media.

It was in the Army that McVeigh turned to anti-government literature and propaganda. One influential book on the young, impressionable mind was The Turner Diaries, a kind of paranoid vision of the future. So shallow, ridiculous, superficial, it's rather hard to think of it being taken seriously.

A serious case of post-traumatic stress accompanied McVeigh's release from the Army after the war. He didn't assimilate back into civilian life in Pendleton, N.Y. He grew weary and restless and traveled, searching for the America he believed in deeply, searching for himself. He got into survivalism and went to gun shows, meeting like-minded "revolutionaries," or extremists. It was the massacre at Waco, TX that led him to consider an outright attack against the United States.

Without question, the massacre at Waco was a travesty and we all lost something there. The real argument underlying the confrontation was a question of freedom. In theory, nobody, including the government, has the right to trespass without consent or due process. It was known that the Davidians were involved in a cult-like operation. Given the nature of cults, it's hard to sympathize with them, even if the government transgressed limits and lawful bounds.

McVeigh saw this as the beginning of the end of American freedom. He was troubled, disturbed and misguided. The most dangerous thing in the world is a competent, intelligent man disillusioned by the state of affairs - intent on changing them, for better or worse: a terrorist.

Part of his scheme was to be caught. He wanted to become the sacrificial lamb to the public, giving himself up to be crucified. With head held high, no sorrow, no remorse, he walked onto Death Row and into the Execution Chamber as if it was just another mission. I wonder what his thoughts would have been about 9/11; he missed it by about three months.

He thought his attack would set off a chain reaction of others, as if the public were as put off by the state of affairs as himself. Anticipating some kind of following, or understanding at least, he portrayed himself as the ultimate underground leader, an inspired model of some kind. He played this out to the end, rather pathetically.

Overall, he was right on target with just about everything he talked about. The idea of a terrorist and terrorism, which eludes and haunts us today, is best embodied in the thought and action of this man. From a distance, anyone can see the fatal error, the tragic twist between disagreement and the lighting of a fuse. McVeigh was fighting a war with himself. There was no enemy, no sides, no ideologies, only victims of a bombing and the fatalities. Nobody ever wins.

Impact Postscript

Two underlying questions from the previous post, “What is the function of the revolutionary,” and, “To what extent may the actions of the revolutionary be justified?” Murder and death, it seems, are a necessary part of the equation, “collateral damage,” as it were, unpreventable. In some cases those in power willingly concede and step down, as was the case with Mubarak in Egypt last year. Other times they acquiesce allowing for change. When absolute, fundamental change is needed, and the ruling party is unwilling to compromise, what then is acceptable? Where exactly are the limitations? What is the role of the revolutionary? Historically, there has been supreme and monumental success as well as disaster, both culturally and individually.

The revolutionary is the radical agent for change. But what kind of change exactly and for what purpose? These determinations can be helpful in assessing the viability of the act itself.

Undesirable activity against the state will always be designated terrorism by the state. To be understood the terrorist act, wherever it occurs, must be questioned, the purported reason for it examined and explored. In this way the event can be processed. The actions of, say, the Zapatistas or the Sandanistas can be justified and appear honorable, indeed, noble, whereas those of the PLO in Munich, the attacks of 9/11, or McVeigh’s strike against the U.S. government (the faceless, ever-present, bureaucratic non-entity) seem pathetic, despicable, and counter-productive.

In the modern world it can be difficult to locate the actual enemy, the real threat. Terrorists are misguided, disillusioned, and essentially undemocratic. They mistakenly think one thing necessarily leads to another (if I blow up this building, people will understand the gravity of the situation). The revolutionary, however, is the enemy of tyranny and despotism, the instrumental catalyst. The revolutionary penetrates superficial causalities. The revolutionary seeks to effectively change the world around them for the better.

Change is a process - a slow, laborious, mundane process. What is unfair and unjust must be challenged. And violence is not the answer. There are too many profound, illustrious alternatives.