With our cultural fixation on numerology, it seems especially obligatory to comment on the anniversary of 9/11 because it is the tenth.
I was every bit as shaken by the event as everyone else; struck by the juxtaposition of gratuitous destruction and peaceful cool, blue fall skies of that morning. After that, there was the chaotic nature in which information flowed in. The Internet was a little different then than it is today; not quite as opaque as it was in, say, 1995; but you still had to know where to go for quick information. I got a lot of my information from The Well; a bulletin board system of sorts with a lot of reliable posters from all around the country, primarily on the coasts.
The drive home was a little surreal. I confess I cried a little bit. I forget what all moved me that much – probably, it wasn’t the death of strangers. I’ve seen that on any number of news reports over the years and read about even greater numbers of deaths in history books without feeling the least bit emotionally involved. I think it was more a sense that things in this country were bound to change for the worse. But, I don’t know how much of that sense is actual memory and how much of that is memory colored by the fact that things did change for the worse. Aside from getting emotional, the rest of what I recall from the drive home was that the roads were pretty quiet — but, that’s not unusual in the back country roads from Lafayette to Monticello — and, before I got out of Lafayette, the Family Express on North 9th Street had jacked up its prices in response to the attacks.
When I got home, I was given a lesson in media consolidation. Every channel had coverage of the attacks; and, each channel would use the feed from its parent company’s news division. So, I found out that MTV and CBS were tied together, for example. Up and down the channel list, you would probably get one of five or six news broadcasts.
Shortly after the attacks, I also remember being uneasy about the number of people on the news programs saying some variant of “everything changed” on 9/11. Or, maybe, “irony died” on 9/11. Kind of weird stuff from, I suspected, people who wanted irony to die or everything to change and were projecting their desires on the event. But, aside from that, there was this incredible unity. I remember having hopes that we, as a country, would use the event to get behind something god almighty big and make our generation memorable. I don’t think I had anything specific in mind; but something on the scale of the moon landing was probably bouncing around in there.
I recall being extremely touched by the gift of 14 cattle by Kenyan Maasai herders. More than anything, that demonstrated that the World was almost entirely on our side following those attacks. I also recall being moved by Jon Stewart’s speech when the Daily Show came back on the air. We were starting to shake off the stunned reaction.
It’s hard telling what, if anything, might have been possible with Americans unified and the World in our corner; but I think it’s fair to say that we squandered the moment. We all wanted vengeance; but the just thing to do isn’t always the smart thing to do. In the end, our response to 9/11 hurt us far worse than the event itself did or than al Qaeda had the power to. Pearl Harbor represented the tip of Imperial Japan’s spear. 9/11 was al Qaeda going all-in and sucker punching us.
I supported the invasion of Afghanistan; though, in retrospect, that might not have been the height of wisdom. We’re still there. We wouldn’t be the first empire that went to Afghanistan to die. But, it was Iraq that was the height of monstrous stupidity. Without 9/11, you couldn’t sell the invasion of Iraq to the American people.
So, here we are, ten years later; economically spent and lacking optimism. It’s hard to remember how things were prior to 9/11. During the late 90s, the Internet boom made us feel like we were creating something phenomenal. Energy was high. Jobs were easy to come by. Infrastructure was not crumbling.
We can’t blame 9/11 for everything, of course. The dotcom buble was bursting; the housing bubble was still inflating, but the trajectory was pretty well set. Wall Street was stacking its house of cards higher and higher. Our industrial base was already being hollowed out. But, it seems to me, our reaction to 9/11 was a force multiplier. We increased our expenses enormously without bothering to budget for them. Government credibility, not at a high water mark anyway, was demolished. “Weapons of Mass Destruction” and “War on Terra” became punchlines.
It’s entirely appropriate that we honor the first responders of 9/11 as brave and regard the deaths of the folks in the Pentagon and World Trade center as tragic. But, for me, the nobility of the people who acted that day and the solemnity of the occasion is tainted by all that followed.
My facebook status today:
I’m upset at how much fear we still have after 9/11, and how much we’ve let them win. Increased airport security & all of the security theater does nothing to keep us safe, but increases the amount of fear we have. Fear is the whole point of terrorism, and every time we fear we let them win.
My friend posted the following as the conclusion to his obligatory 9/11 post, and in 10 years I’m not sure I’ve heard any better expression:
“I choose to remember today by going about my life as normally as possible. I would think that is the most appropriate way to respond to terrorism.”
There are so many thoughts and emotions linked to 9/11 it’s seems a daunting task to begin sorting them out. One thought leads to another and things begin to ramble and tangle into a vine of incoherent mental fog. Some things to think about however; in retrospect the invasion of Iraq was a mistake in one way but probably a necessary step. Though Hussein probably wasn’t directly attached to the terrorist attacks I’m sure he was in support of them as they occurred. The case of the WMD’s was probably just a rallying point to justify the invasion. I’m sure the thought at the time was that Iraq would fall in a few days or weeks like they did in 1991. This time it was different. On the positive side we did depose a brutal dictator’s regime and hopefully sowed the seeds for democracy in that country. Time will tell if they will flourish into a stable Arab state or not. The real question is: will this state be a government that the U.S. will approve of and support? The reason I say that the Iraq invasion may have been a necessary step is simply this; I fully stand behind the invasion of Afghanistan and had we attempted an invasion there with Hussein still in power we’d have no doubt been shot in the back by his military forces. In an area of many enemies, or at best, unreliable allies, we had to take out the big dog on the block before attempting any action elsewhere. Especially an enemy that most likely was still stung by our previous actions in their country. This is just simple strategy.
On another topic of 9/11; In 1998 I was in NYC for a weekend to see a concert. We drove around lower Manhattan quite a bit and one day we came upon a group of Firefighters rushing from a nondescript building and into a large “hook-and-ladder” truck that nearly ran me over a few minutes later. (I evaded by driving up onto the sidewalk to the delight of my passengers). Anyway, sometime after the attacks occurred, I was relating this story to my mom and she said “You know, they’re probably all dead now”, meaning the firefighters. This really hit me for some reason. I had no intimate contact with these men but felt acutely depressed when this was brought to my attention. Strange how the mind works.
Dan says, “The reason I say that the Iraq invasion may have been a necessary step is simply this; I fully stand behind the invasion of Afghanistan and had we attempted an invasion there with Hussein still in power we’d have no doubt been shot in the back by his military forces. In an area of many enemies, or at best, unreliable allies, we had to take out the big dog on the block before attempting any action elsewhere.”
You gotta be kidding? Either that or you need to review your history and geography. Saddam Hussein had *nothing* with which to threaten the United States. No border with Afghanistan, no navy, no air force (and Iraq was still contained within a no-fly zone anyway; even if he did have an air force, he couldn’t have got out) — and no WMD.
No. The Iraq adventure was a $2 trillion (and counting) war of choice that Bush/Cheney were committed to even before 9/11. It was simply madness or hubris (if there’s a difference).
The words “Never Forget” were first applied to the Holocaust. Sadly, we have.
I remember having hopes that we, as a country, would use the event to get behind something god almighty big and make our generation memorable. I don’t think I had anything specific in mind; but something on the scale of the moon landing was probably bouncing around in there.
Like, I don’t know… bringing democracy to the Arabs? Oh look, we did that in Iraq.
Increased airport security & all of the security theater does nothing to keep us safe, but increases the amount of fear we have.
The lead editorial in the Chicago Tribune yesterday linked the anger of the failure of bureaucracy that led to 9/11 with the rolling anger that permeates our society today. Bureaucratic going through the motions is no longer acceptable, whether it is airport security, or teachers in the classroom, or Wall Street regulation, or a lot of other things.
We want to judge people with RESULTS. I thought that was a pretty original take on our situation.
Nah. I’m pretty parochial and never cared much for the Arabs (or other Middle Easterners) other than to leave them alone.
Nah. I’m pretty parochial and never cared much for the Arabs (or other Middle Easterners) other than to leave them alone.
That’s all well and good, but we had an unfinished war in Iraq, and terrorists from there hit us on 9/11. In the face of such chaos, much of which came from the autocracy there, a policy of evangelical democracy was appropriate.
Now, I can broach the argument that using the Marines to push democracy isn’t appropriate, and perhaps our Iran policy makes more sense (how’s that working out?). But to just say that “we need to mind our own business” isn’t acceptable.
When I said “terrorists hit us from there”, I meant the Middle East, not Iraq.
We do need to “mind our own business” internationally. But, sometimes “our business” does mean getting involved in foreign wars/politics. This time though, we have WAY overstayed the “our business” part.
Chaos is everywhere. Using that as a raison d’être for sending in the Marines, as you put it, usually bites us on the behind, sooner rather than later.
So, just for argument’s sake, what would you propose to do about Iran?
So, just for argument’s sake, what would you propose to do about Iran?
Be much more aggressive in our Cold War against them. Sending in the Marines would obviously work, but the post-Iraq realpolitik would never allow it. But seeing as how we now surround them in Iraq and Afghanistan, we could be much more aggressive with regards to closing their borders, psychological warfare, encouraging their democracy movement, and the other things we did during the cold war against communism.
We should also be very clear that, if they get a nuke and use it, the Marines are going in to take them out.
“Much more aggressive”. Sounds like you’re running for office. Agressive how? Politically, diplomatically, militarily? Who is going to do the “aggressive” part? Your Secretary of State? UN Ambassador, V.P., the Marines (which I hope you mean generically, since it is the Army ehich provides the bulk of any US ground forces)?
You think they are “surrounded? I think you are forgetting several other important borders. We could never “close their borders”. Heck, we can’t even close our own. Psychological warfare? Think that might deter the Iranian leadership, do you? Really?
This isn’t very much like the Cold War against the Soviet Union. The same solutions are likely either too little or too much. How might you be thinking of paying for all of this? Cold War was nothing else if not an expensive proposition. Aren’t you one of the “less taxes” crowd?
Finally, “if they use it, the Marines are going in…”? Who are you planning on taking out? Lots more Iranians than Iraqis and Afghans combined. Lots. Know where to find “them” (epsecially if they expect your visit)? Think the other powers are just going to sit on their hands? Both the Russians and the Chinese have “business interests” in Iran. What about the Pakistanis? And, just where are you going to get enough Marines to do the job? Last time I checked we were a little over-extended in reference to combat troops.
The devil is in the details, and I’m not quite sure you have thought this out enough yet.
Dear Buzzcut – I’m curious to know how you propose to pay for these military actions.
I don’t think that it needs to be all that expensive, although it will require us to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, which it doesn’t seem like we’re going to do. But as we have shown in Somalia and Yemen, we can use Predator drones to great effect with very little cost.
It’s pretty clear that the Iranians are working to get a nuclear weapon, and that they will use it on Israel. If that happens, I have no doubt that we would send in the Marines. I’d just like us to be a little more forthright in that, perhaps it would be a deterrent.
Keep in mind that the Iranians are, for example, actively helping keep Assad in power in Syria, which is another regime that we should be trying to topple through realpolitik/ cold war theatrics, if not blatant Predator strikes.
Well Buzzcut, I have to say that your analysis ranks right “up” there with Mitch Daniels’ budgetary assessment for the Iraqi war. Epic fail, by the way.
Technology is not a substitute for boots on the ground. And, define “very little cost” for me? $5 million each? So, on a good day, maybe twenty casualties per missile? That’s about a quarter of a million dollars per casualty. Economical.
And just where would you look for people to kill? Urban government facilities, provincial antecedents, bunkers? Any idea how much intel we have on Iran right now? I don’t.
Whoa! Now you want to add Syria too?!? The domino theory was debunked a few years back, you know. Cha-ching! That’s more money (you already don’t have).
Here’s my point. We are not the world’s “policeman”. Should never have tried. When something/someone(s) infringes upon our (real) national interests, then we should become involved. Otherwise, everything in the world doesn’t have to be our way or the highway. What was Iraq doing to us? Nothing, it turned out.
The debate should revolve around what our national interests are, not how we plan to make everybody act the way we want them to. After the debate, then we should act with restraint, and only if necessary and just where lies our national interests. And, those acts don’t have to be military in nature. Could be economic, could be diplomatic, could be by using PR. It could be by doing nothing.
I don’t believe that we are capable of making the Iranian goverment do anything they don’t want to. Over-extended military, still severed diplomatic ties, few economic ties, fewer communications ties. We could provide Israel with Star Wars technologies (if they haven’t absconded with all of them already). But, that’s it. The rest is just cheap bluster at this point.
I don’t believe that we are capable of making the Iranian goverment do anything they don’t want to.
Perhaps not. But they do have a real democracy movement afoot, that’s how you facilitate their downfall.
I personally have no doubt that we could roll over them as easily as we did Iraq. I have no doubts about the ability of our military to achieve their military objectives, no matter how “overextended” they are.
What is obvious is that we can’t afford to occupy yet another country. Thus, the Pakistan/ Yemen/ Somalia strategy of Predators and special forces.
In retrospect, the wars in Afghanist and Iraq were bad ideas. I don’t know how we can justify Afghanistan, but not Iraq. Neither Saddam, nor the Taliban attacked us directly.
I am also starting to think that economic sanctions against any county (including Iran) are a bad idea. Aren’t we supposed to be the “free trade” country? But now we want to stop the sale and transfer of goods? Almost sounds, unAmerican. Additionally, wouldn’t it be hard for the population of these countries to think we are the American Satan when they are wearing Levi Jeans, Polo shirts, and Nikes?
Afghanistan was quite a bit more justifiable than Iraq inasmuch as the Taliban was harboring al Qaeda. I’m not saying it was a great policy decision; but there was a fairly direct kind of rationality there.
I understand the argument that Afghanistan harbored the Taliban. I just don’t agree with it. If some dude punches me and then hides in your house, I don’t have the right to break down your door and take him from your dinner table, do I?
Let’s also not forget the inhumane actions that occurred under Saddam’s watch in Iraq.
We’ll just have to disagree then, Buzz. I think you need to read up on Iran first. It isn’t Iraq.
As far as their democracy movement goes, perhaps you are right, but I believe that their current form of government (and their culture) is different enough from the Soviet Cold War model that a superficial comparison would yield incorrect conclusions.
Paul C, you’re right, in your example, I wouldn’t say I have the right to break that person’s door down for punching me in the nose.
However, if someone murdered my family & was hiding in your house, I would ask once for you to give him to me. If you didn’t, there would be no end to what I would do to your house until I got him.
I’m not saying my actions would be moral, but they would be understandable.
If we’re using a home as a metaphor for Afghanistan, I think al Qaeda was more like an honored guest than an unexpected fugitive.
Jason: the moral/undertandable difference you reference is sort of my point. It is probably more understandable for the world to figure out why we went to war with Afghanistan, but the bottom line is that war is not any more “moral” than our war in Iraq which liberated the Iraqi people from a cruel dictator that has committed genocidal acts.
Doug, I agree.
Paul C, thanks for seeing my point, and I get what you’re saying.
I think that is a good example because while I know my faith says I shouldn’t go on a hunt for vengeance, I’m not certain I could hold myself back in the moment.
In the same way, I supported both wars at the time, and regret both wars now. I’m more upset with myself about that now than anyone else.