George Bush’S Great America [EN]: Chapter 187

< Chapter 186 >

The French airplane hijacking, which had briefly subsided, once again dominated headlines as the European Council convened an emergency EU meeting.

In this tense situation, after a protracted 30-minute meeting, a consensus began to emerge:

“Why don’t we just destroy all the potential landing sites?”

While a small, one- or two-seater aircraft might manage, a large passenger plane requires a proper runway to land. Landing on ordinary roads or concrete would completely wreck the surface. In other words, attempting to land on a typical grassy field or barren wasteland would be nothing short of suicidal.

Of course, if the terrain were perfectly flat, the plane’s fuselage might remain relatively intact, but the passengers inside would certainly suffer. Considering the terrorists’ goal is to force the EU out of the Middle East by taking hostages, wouldn’t they need to land safely to achieve anything at all?

This assumes the terrorists are rational enough to understand this, but even if they aren’t, wouldn’t they need a hideout to imprison the hostages?

Therefore, it wasn’t surprising that the EU emergency meeting considered destroying all suspicious locations before the passenger plane could land. After all, if the plane has nowhere to land, wouldn’t it be forced to land at an airport?

Thus, the idea of preemptively destroying potential landing sites, while seemingly crude, was a potentially effective method. Unless the terrorists were driven into a corner with nothing left to lose, prompting a suicidal crash.

After all, every strategy has its pros and cons, right?

Before executing this plan, the fundamental problem was its overseas nature, requiring close cooperation with the governments involved. Even in a stable country, allowing foreign troops to cross its borders is a sensitive issue, let alone permitting military operations.

Next was a more practical concern: the issue of cost. Maintaining a military is expensive, and deploying it is even more so. Negotiating with the relevant governments would undoubtedly incur costs as well. If they demanded excessive compensation for the destruction, that would be the best-case scenario. Prestige concerns might even prevent them from allowing any foreign military intervention, insisting their own forces handle the situation.

“Shouldn’t we demonstrate the extent of our anger right now?”

Since the large-scale terrorist attacks on cultural sites across Europe, the public was weary of terrorism. This hijacking provided the most compelling justification for the EU forces stationed in the Middle East.

This also explained why even small-scale acts of terrorism so easily inflamed public sentiment and were universally condemned. The primary reason demonstrations were relatively infrequent, except in France where protests are practically a national pastime, was the collective fear of becoming a target. People suffered from the delusion that they would be attacked if they gathered.

Indiscriminate terrorist attacks had, in fact, occurred several times during festivals and demonstrations. Several amusement parks were forced to close due to declining attendance and rising security costs, and the prices of everyday goods and preserved foods were skyrocketing. Had the EU not intervened swiftly, a can of tuna would have cost a staggering 25 euros.

Anyway, returning to the main point, the idea of destroying and suppressing all potential runway bases seemed promising.

“I agree. No country wants to risk war with the EU right now.”

Some leaders of member states behaved with a degree of arrogance. Europe had never been truly united since the Roman Empire, but when they did come together, their collective strength was formidable. They felt capable of anything, and in many ways, they were.

No one explicitly discussed the potential downsides of this operation, but they were all aware of them to some extent.

However, a common sentiment permeated all the leaders: the approach to counter-terrorism needed to change. They desired a shift away from traditional negotiation methods, whether it was progress or a step backward.

‘No negotiation with terrorists.’

They wouldn’t be as blatant as Russia, but they were convinced that prolonged negotiations were unacceptable. This conviction had been deeply ingrained in the minds of all the leaders present through the numerous terrorist attacks of recent years.

This sentiment wasn’t limited to the EU. Leaders of ASEAN member states, as well as those in Africa and South America, held similar views, either consciously or unconsciously. However, this didn’t extend to Northeast Asia and Australia.

These regions had experienced relatively few Islamic terrorist attacks, let alone significant terrorism. At most, they had only faced indiscriminate attacks without specific demands. Notable examples included the bombing of the Admiral Yi Sun-sin statue in Gwanghwamun, South Korea; the explosive attack at Gangnam Church; the complete burning of Osaka Castle in Japan; and the explosion at the US military base in Okinawa.

In South Korea’s case, while there had been terrorist attacks of varying scales, they hadn’t caused significant economic damage. The Yi Sun-sin statue was being rebuilt, and security at some churches had been increased. However, there was an amusing incident where the opposition party blamed communists for the attacks, rather than Muslims.

Japan also didn’t suffer substantial economic losses from rebuilding Osaka Castle, but the incident provided an opportunity for more radical politicians to gain popularity.

“The informal vote of the emergency meeting is concluded.”

Even those who disagreed with the operation felt compelled to vote in favor, despite their reservations. There was no alternative, and the situation was urgent. Consequently, when the actual vote took place, only a small minority of leaders opposed the plan.

Thus, the EU’s first large-scale counter-terrorism operation was approved and set in motion.

However, it came with one condition.

“Operation Name: Divine Sandstorm. Approved.”

Bush received a diplomatic communication from French President Jacques Chirac requesting cooperation with the EU’s established operation. The single condition was American assistance.

‘The empty words I offered as comfort have come back to haunt me.’

It wasn’t that he was unwilling to help, but he hadn’t anticipated this particular form of assistance – one that would cost a fortune.

“Our country is definitely the only one with troops stationed all over the world, right?”

“Did the intelligence system that the Five Eyes [intelligence alliance between Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States] boasts about completely fail? To the point where we have to deploy the military and destroy everything preemptively?”

In reality, the expenses could be reduced exponentially if they could simply pinpoint the intended landing site.

“Damn it.”

Except for the Chief of Staff, everyone else was puzzled. They expected the President to be pleased by this news. But Bush, who they thought would be happy, looked like he was about to lose his mind.

‘Ah, damn it. Deploying the military on this scale will obliterate the budget.’

Bush cursed inwardly several times.

‘The only silver lining is that this operation isn’t technically a war.’

Strictly speaking, it was a war on terror, so it was a war. It just wasn’t a conventional war, but the financial burden was similar. To be precise, it was significantly less than a full-scale war, but still substantial.

“So, you’re saying they want us to bomb suspected or presumed landing sites to prevent them from landing?”

“That appears to be the case.”

“I’ll discuss it with Congress, so instruct the Pentagon to handle it.”

Not even a day had passed, but Bush was already weary of this hijacking. With Bush’s order, the US military, which had been transitioning from standby to peacetime and gradually withdrawing from the operation area, was suddenly burdened with a deployment of over ten thousand personnel.

With the United States and Russia belatedly joining forces with Europe, the operation proceeded smoothly. Civilian runways in certain regions were temporarily closed, and unregistered illegal runways were either bombarded or shut down by military forces. It was no exaggeration to say that nearly all potential or concealed runways in Eurasia were demolished during this period.

Furthermore, ASEAN also cooperated to the best of its ability, resulting in a similar pattern in Southeast Asia. However, they seized this opportunity to use joint training exercises with the US military as a pretext to test their newly reorganized air force against rebel groups as experimental targets.

Africa presented a slightly different challenge, but African nations decided to leverage the situation to extract as much aid as possible from the EU, reaching an agreement concurrently. While some countries may have wished to obstruct or resist, they had to consider the potential for large-scale trade sanctions, if not outright war, should the hijacked plane make an emergency landing within their borders.

It was safe to say that they were doing everything within their power. Large-scale troop deployments were sent to any plausible location, resembling a full-blown war. In fact, it was more of a one-sided massacre than a war.

Unlike the intense scene unfolding on the ground, everything seemed to proceed calmly on the office desk. That created a strangely unpleasant feeling. He was just holding a pen or paper in his hand and tapping his feet, but thousands or tens of thousands of people were dying at his words.

“Islamic-related terrorism is karma.”

But that didn’t mean he would just stand by and watch innocent civilians die. Bush decided to simply treat the budget spent this time as necessary expenses.

“We’ve done all we can.”

However, the world is rarely so simple that one incident concludes before another arises. More often, an existing incident escalates, or an incident presumed to be over reignites.

This is why politics is challenging. It is also why things often go awry, regardless of good intentions. Various problems erupt simultaneously in different locations, and any individual capable of resolving them all would be considered a superhuman, a freak. This is why Plato advocated for a philosopher-king.

In conclusion, another major incident erupted on the planet.

Several new types of diseases that escaped China’s blockade in some Eastern European countries finally evolved and blossomed after a long incubation period. In a completely different form from the existing ones.