David Bell, a history professor at Johns Hopkins University, has an op ed in today’s yesterday’s Los Angeles Times called “Was 9/11 really that bad?” In spite of the flame-baiting headline, which I doubt Professor Bell wrote, it makes a sensible point.
Has the American reaction to the attacks in fact been a massive overreaction? Is the widespread belief that 9/11 plunged us into one of the deadliest struggles of our time simply wrong? If we did overreact, why did we do so? Does history provide any insight?
Certainly, if we look at nothing but our enemies’ objectives, it is hard to see any indication of an overreaction. The people who attacked us in 2001 are indeed hate-filled fanatics who would like nothing better than to destroy this country. But desire is not the same thing as capacity, and although Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States.
Yet a great many Americans, particularly on the right, have failed to make this distinction. For them, the “Islamo-fascist” enemy has inherited not just Adolf Hitler’s implacable hatreds but his capacity to destroy. The conservative author Norman Podhoretz has gone so far as to say that we are fighting World War IV (No. III being the Cold War). …
… as the comparison with the Soviet experience should remind us, the war against terrorism has not yet been much of a war at all, let alone a war to end all wars. It is a messy, difficult, long-term struggle against exceptionally dangerous criminals who actually like nothing better than being put on the same level of historical importance as Hitler — can you imagine a better recruiting tool? To fight them effectively, we need coolness, resolve and stamina. But we also need to overcome long habit and remind ourselves that not every enemy is in fact a threat to our existence.
This is pretty much what I’ve been saying all along. There aren’t enough jihadists in the world to destroy the United States. There aren’t enough of them to invade us, seize Washington, and occupy our territory. There just aren’t. That ought to be obvious. Even if they could pull off another 9/11, that wouldn’t destroy us, either.
Professor Bell began his op ed this way:
IMAGINE THAT on 9/11, six hours after the assault on the twin towers and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks on the United States, taking an additional 3,000 lives. Imagine that six hours after that, there had been yet another wave. Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead. This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II, and contemplating these numbers may help put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against
terrorism.
Yes, if the jihadists could pull off a 9/11 attack every six hours for four years, that would constitute an existential threat. But, obviously, they can’t come anywhere close to that.
At this point I want to remind readers that I was, in fact, in lower Manhattan on 9/11 and am an eyewitness to the collapse of the WTC towers. Anyone who comments that I am in denial about what happened on 9/11 will be well and thoroughly ridiculed.
Naturally a number of rightie bloggers already are hyperventilating over Professor Bell’s op ed, and their reactions prove once again that righties have the reading comprehension skills of gnats. And you absolutely can not challenge a rightie’s overblown senses of righteousness and victimhood without getting snarked.
The point that Professor Bell only mentions, but which is critical, is that our overreaction is hurting us more than it’s hurting them. Several antiterrorism experts interviewed by James Fallows for this September 2006 Atlantic Monthly article made the same point most urgently. I blogged about this article here, here, and here, and probably elsewhere. Here’s an excerpt:
No modern nation is immune to politically inspired violence, and even the best-executed antiterrorism strategy will not be airtight.
But the overall prospect looks better than many Americans believe, and better than nearly all political rhetoric asserts. The essence of the change is this: because of al-Qaeda’s own mistakes, and because of the things the United States and its allies have done right, al-Qaeda’s ability to inflict direct damage in America or on Americans has been sharply reduced. Its successor groups in Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere will continue to pose dangers. But its hopes for fundamentally harming the United States now rest less on what it can do itself than on what it can trick, tempt, or goad us into doing. Its destiny is no longer in its own hands.
“Does al-Qaeda still constitute an ‘existential’ threat?†asks David Kilcullen, who has written several influential papers on the need for a new strategy against Islamic insurgents. Kilcullen, who as an Australian army officer commanded counter-insurgency units in East Timor, recently served as an adviser in the Pentagon and is now a senior adviser on counterterrorism at the State Department. He was referring to the argument about whether the terrorism of the twenty-first century endangers the very existence of the United States and its allies, as the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons did throughout the Cold War (and as the remnants of that arsenal still might).
“I think it does, but not for the obvious reasons,†Kilcullen told me. He said the most useful analogy was the menace posed by European anarchists in the nineteenth century. “If you add up everyone they personally killed, it came to maybe 2,000 people, which is not an existential threat.†But one of their number assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife. The act itself took the lives of two people. The unthinking response of European governments in effect started World War I. “So because of the reaction they provoked, they were able to kill millions of people and destroy a civilization.
“It is not the people al-Qaeda might kill that is the threat,†he concluded. “Our reaction is what can cause the damage. It’s al-Qaeda plus our response that creates the existential danger.â€
This is the point that righties are, universally, too stupid or too scared to get. The pathetic little weenies hide behind their keyboards and do everything they can to jettison the Bill of Rights and the balance of powers because they are afraid and they think a big almighty dictatorial President can save them.
Whoever the next President is, let me say now that it is not enough for this individual to want to end the war in Iraq. I want this individual to lead the American people away from the fear and hysteria the Bushies have cultivated to their advantage. The American people need to understand that, although terrorists can take lives and knock down buildings, the only thing the nation has to fear is, well, fear itself.
Update: See The Anonymous Liberal.
i have found it interesting since the first world war II analogies began to appear that the right wing is esstentially equating a bunch of guys with limited resources, ak’s, limited education in most cases, toyota trucks with machine guns mounted on the dash, and explosives made from household products – with the most powerful army and the most powerful navy in the world at that time. This massive, historically dishonest misrepresentation of capability should contextualize right-wing political conclusions regarding the “jihadist caliphate” they fear, and highlight the irrationality of those fears.
Terrorism is like acne. It is always with us. It doesn’t affect everyone, nor is it everywhere, though everyone everywhere is potentially susceptible to it. It is not an existential threat. To control it, one must take all of the known precautions (keep your face clean & moisturized, manage your diet; secure your borders, harden your targets) and be mindful of its potential attack (visit the dermatologist regularly; have smart & knowledgeable undercover agents & prosecutors, if you’re susceptible). From time to time there’s an outbreak, at which point stronger action is required (antibiotics; war).
I live in NYC and saw the plume of smoke immediately after the first jet hit the WTC–followed by sirens screaming downtown. (I was jogging along the East River around 60th St.) Still, audacious though that event was, the country’s subsequent reaction has been even more horrendous.
Haven’t read the following book yet, but saw Mueller on Book-TV and think he’s onto the right way of looking at thesubject:
Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them by John Mueller
“CAHN” your reference to John Mueller’s book “Overblown” is exactly what I was thinking as I read B.’s post. I have watched that interview a couple of times and he has been on Washington Journal as well. He sure does provoker the fear-mongers!
The question I chew on regularly is why the Righties are so given to outrage and defensive bristling that leads them to be so militant? As always it appears from my limited perspective to be a multi-variate interweave. Corporate types require stimulus to the business of war material and machine purchasing so they can stack their gold (“Wonder what the poor people are doing to night…whatever it is, it’s too good for them”).
Those who aspire to the top of the food chain in order to dominate and control require the populace to be afraid and passive so that they can be herded and misled. The money boys are happy to fund this group so that joe-sixpack is distracted and not paying attention to tax cuts, corporate welfare and monkeyshines at the ballot box.
The Fundies center of gravity through and through is premodern, (tribal/feudal kingdom roots) want the populace afraid so that their apocalyptic predictions of the future will add the extra special ingredient of shame to the already in place fear.
And all of them want things to stay “the good old way” which is threatened by anything that smacks of (the dictionary definition of) liberal.
I was not politically observant until 9/11 and when I began to hear the war cry that Liberals have been in charge for the last 40 years I was shocked and then curious–I just wasn’t paying attention which seems to be the case for many. While I don’t see any Shirley Temples’ or Abe Lincolns on the Blue/Left side, it seems that the Right’s range of moral and spiritual consciousness is premodern to modern and the Left’s is Modern to Postmodern and ‘atween the two, they cain’t hardly looket each other in the eyes.
Oh, dear……. sputter, sputter, sputter. Are the wingers capable of being weaned off that adrenaline high they sustain from imagining ‘the end is near’ threats from the evil ones? Noooo, the wingers are too invested in their delicious ‘raison d’etre’, and are in love with all the hooplala of ‘a clash of civilizations’.
Don’t count on the war-profiteer-manipulated wingers being open to thinking things through from another perspective. That would be like counting on a thirteen year old overweight girl to figure out that the attention she’s getting from that upperclassman might be about a one-night stand.
DoubleCinco wrote:
“The question I chew on regularly is why the Righties are so given to outrage and defensive bristling that leads them to be so militant?”
Imho, it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. They need justify their militancy so they manufacture extreme outrage and fear. The cycle continues.
I think perhaps the one ‘mistake’ David Bell made in his op-ed was comparing the number of deaths to those who perish in car accidents. Some on the left have taken right-wingers to task when they’ve used the same comparison.
I do, however, appreciate the overall point he made – especially highlighting the fact that countries like the US do not face annihilation from groups like al Quaeda. Frankly, if the Bush administration was *so* concerned about that supposed fact, it would have completely secured the country’s borders, airlines, ships, etc ASAP after 9/11. The Decider has obviously decided that the threat he preaches about isn’t really all that real after all.
I find you lefties amusing. You’d rather wait until there’s a Stalingrad type siege to fight back, maybe. Of course, you’d want to poll ‘the world’s’ opinion for permission first.
Knock Knock.
Who is there?
Jihaddi terrorist.
What can I do for you today?
I am here to hurt your family. But only one of them. I don’t have enough bullets in my gun to kill you all.
Oh that’s fine then. Since my family will continue to exist even with the dead member, then I shouldn’t overreact to your threat.
Seriously gentlemen. Wake up and smell the east river. No one believed that the North had the capacity to invade and conquer the South during the war of Northern Aggression either. I guess the pundits were wrong there as well. Should we jump at shadows? No, of course not. We should shine a light on it, and when a giant sewer rat comes rolling out, we should eliminate it completely. Of course, knowing that where there is one rat, it is likely that there are more, we should begin by eliminating the whole bunch. That’s not overeacting, that’s just common sense.
Imagine if 36 hours after 9/11 Bush had contacted every world leader and coordinated raids on suspected terrorist, to occur at the exact same moment worldwide, would we still be having this conversation?
We had universal goodwill and enough countries might have gone for it since it is a worldwide problem that pipelines, cells and seniority would have been disrupted for years, giving us a chance to have our so-called spy services time to infiltrate.
But no, we wailed, moaned and cried instead of standing up for our country and our values. Instead we decided to overreact and create a bigger mess for ourselves.
I believe that is called a either a lack of leadership or the trifecta, depending which side of the divide you reside on.
Wow, appallingly stupid comments from #6 and #7. How the hell are jihadists even going to mount a “Stalingrad-type siege”? And what’s humorous about not having any sort of realistic perspective? It’s tragic that your sort of idiocy has now killed more American citizens in Iraq, than Al Qaeda killed on 9/11. Welcome to the last 30% of the population that just doesn’t get it.
Mishu-
Virtually every left blogger has supported, and continues to support, the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. You know, the guys that actually attacked us.
What we don’t support is irrational fear, inflating the threat and destroying our freedoms. I know you’ve been scared to death by your heroes at Fox and by Rush, but it was only for ratings. You can come out from under the bed, the jihadists are only another risk to be controlled and stopped. And a relatively minor one at that. Drunk drivers are 10 times more deadly. What are you doing to stop that?
You make an excellent point, one that could be made more often by more blogs. This might be a good time for others to mention it now that the right wing appear to be on the run.
joanr16,
I don’t beleive that you get the point of #6. I believe that the post is inteded to determine where the threshold is for “lefties”(his words not mine) to sanction the use of military force.
I guess I am unsure as to what you consider a realistic perspective. I simply created an analogy to personlize the situation. It is very easy to poo-poo war and violence in the abstract, but it is an entirely different thing when it comes to your doorstep.
WFIGUY
“You sleep safe and sound because there are men who are willing to do violence on your behalf, in a place that you may not have ever heard of, against men whom you will never know, that want you dead.”
I believe that the post is intended to determine where the threshold is for “leftiesâ€(his words not mine) to sanction the use of military force.
The myth among righties is that “lefties” never want to use military force, but that is not and never has been true. Righties, on the other hand, think the only solution to any problem is to shoot it.
Looking at the mess Bush is making, I don’t feel an obligation to justify my opinion or dance to your tune. And no one here has “pooh poohed” war in the abstract. Sometimes there has to be war. But not always.
The burden of proof is on you righties to explain why ANYTHING the Right advocates or that George W. Bush is doing is NOT, in fact, stampeding all of us over a cliff like a herd of frightened buffalo.
Actually, my favorite WWII analogy is not… WWII.
But Hitler’s re-occupation of the Rhineland.
If Daladier had acted as his League of Nations mandate allowed, he could have kicked the German army out of there, and quite possibly caused the downfall of Hitler. This would be back *before* the Germans had the Army and Air Force capable of prosecuting WWII.
And, I submit, the history books would treat Daladier badly, for having trampled the legitimate aspirations of the Germans. Badly, because WWII in Europe wouldn’t have happened the way it did (though the Soviets had some plans for eastern europe in the late 40’s early 50’s).
I’m guessing the war in the Pacific would have happened regardless.
There is an element of that in all this, regardless of what you think should or should not have happened regarding Iraq.
And, even though I’m a right winger – I wasn’t keen on invading Iraq. But then, I wasn’t keen on what we did regarding Kosovo either. Though, as a serving soldier, I obeyed the lawful orders that mandated my involvement in that not-sanctioned-by-the-UN event.
Seriously gentlemen. Wake up and smell the east river.
FYI, I’m a lady born of pioneer stock who grew up in the Ozark Mountains of southern Missouri. I am a 9th-generation hillbilly, in fact.
No one believed that the North had the capacity to invade and conquer the South during the war of Northern Aggression either.
(Snort) you mean that little ruckus that South Carolina was stupid enough to start by firing on the FEDERAL garrison at Fort Sumter, claiming it was South Carolina’s territory, which it wasn’t? Actually the Southerners were idiots if they didn’t realize they lacked the resources and manpower to sustain a long-term military action against the northern states, which were more populous and decades ahead of the South in industrialization.
Yep, those southerners were idiots to have started the Civil War. In the spring of 1861 they could have negotiated an agreement with Lincoln to protect slavery rights in the slave states. Lincoln as much as offered such an agreement in his first inaugural address. But no, the hotheads decided their almighty “way of life” was being threatened by northern industrialization, and the only “solution” was war. Which they started. And they got they asses throughly whupped.
Well, live and learn. Although apparently not in your case.
Please see the commenting rules for hints as to why I’m not going to allow you to waste any more of the group’s time.
And, I submit, the history books would treat Daladier badly, for having trampled the legitimate aspirations of the Germans.
You aren’t making sense. Hitler was dedicated to military aggression. A short-term setback like being kicked out of the Rhineland — assuming he could have been kicked out of the Rhineland — wouldn’t have changed that.
maha,
It is so sad when one of our own fails to know there own history. The people of South Carolina (A Sovereign State) chose to leave the union (note the lack of capitalization). When they did so, the request (P.T.G. Beauregard) sent was one that indicate that Fort Sumter (built on South Carolina soil, using South Carolina assests, and containing South Carolina arms) was to be vacated by the present federal troops (who were now underarms against a sovereign state in it’s own territory). They chose to decline, and South Carolina preceded to forcefully evict them as was thier right as a Sovereign State. As I recall though, the compromise you refer to was no compromise at all. It was “my way or the highway”. Exactly what the “left” accusses the “right” of every day. But as you say it’s your website.
It makes sense if you accept the premise (which can be argued against, surely) that the German military would have overthrown Hitler had the Rhineland adventure gone wrong. They weren’t keen on picking that fight. Hitler’s power at that time wasn’t secure. The fact that the French *didn’t* do anything about the reoccupation of the Rhineland helped consolidate his power.
My point being that Hitler might possibly have been nipped in the bud – and we’d denigrate Daladier for doing so, because we dont’ know what was prevented.
And, remember – Europe was in denial about Hitler’s intent until the invasion of Poland, much to Chamberlain’s regret as the standard bearer for the responsibility of same. And Chamberlains motives were good – he desperately wanted to avoid another 1914-18, and it’s hard to blame him for trying, though we can, with the benefit of hindsight, wish he’d done things differently.
You could make the argument that our lack of reaction, ludicrous reaction, law enforcement reaction, etc, to the challenges tossed at us by OBL and others from the time Reagan pulled the Marines from Beirut through 9/11 made them bold enough to try 9/11.
I just tire of the level of certitude in the arguments from *both ends* of the spectrum.
And I apologize for rambling, incoherent commenting – I’m doing this while also writing a paper. No, I’m not a college student, this is a white paper to convince people they really want to spend money on me…
Well, I think I have to agree that challenging Hitler as he attempted to remilitarize the Rhineland would have significantly changed the course towards the war. We’re deep into “what-if” history, and you’re almost certainly right Maha that Hitler was dedicated to military aggression. But the venture into the Rhineland was a real gamble, and Germany would have had to withdraw if they’d encountered any resistance. What else they would have gotten up to, we leave to speculate another day.
I think perhaps the one ‘mistake’ David Bell made in his op-ed was comparing the number of deaths to those who perish in car accidents. Some on the left have taken right-wingers to task when they’ve used the same comparison.
Yes, that was a crass, and I also suspect he lost people when he wandered into the Enlightenment.
Whoever the next President is, let me say now that it is not enough for this individual to want to end the war in Iraq. I want this individual to lead the American people away from the fear and hysteria the Bushies have cultivated to their advantage.
Hear, hear.
When they did so, the request (P.T.G. Beauregard) sent was one that indicate that Fort Sumter (built on South Carolina soil, using South Carolina assests, and containing South Carolina arms) was to be vacated by the present federal troops (who were now underarms against a sovereign state in it’s own territory).
No. Sumter was a federal military reservation. It was not territory belonging to South Carolina. During the Buchanan Administration South Carolina tried to negotiate for the fort and the arsenal, which was a federal arsenal, but the negotiations failed. Buchanan, a weenie, had allowed southern states to take over other federal military installations and customs houses. This gave the rebels the mistaken impression that they were “entitled” to federal arsenals and installations. But the fort at Sumter was federal, maintained and armed by federal tax dollars and populated by a garrison of federal troops. It was not property of South Carolina and had not been conceded to South Carolina at the time Lincoln was inaugurated.
See, McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, pages 264-275. If I had time I’d give you the page reference from Shelby Foote and whatever other Civil War histories I have stashed around here; they all say the same thing.
There’s also a very good and readable account of the Sumter crisis in The Class of 1846 by John Waugh, pages 183-235.
It IS sad when one of our own doesn’t know our history, but it’s even sadder when an ignorant sot such as yourself presumes to know “our history,” but does not.
I think you guys might be right. It got me thinking about how many innocent victims get killed while being mugged or raped because they fought back, or more importantly because the perp didn’t want to leave any witness because of the severity of the punishment if caught. I mean, we are just talking about a couple of bucks or a little bit of your time here people, not an existential threat, is that really worth dying over? If you just gave them what they wanted and then we all just look the other way, how many innocent lives would be saved?
Argghhh boy said: “I just tire of the level of certitude in the arguments from *both ends* of the spectrum.”
Johnny, the frame I use is R-G-T: role, goal and context. I try very hard in any decision/action I make to first to determine if the role I am in is creating the goal that is most appropriate for the context.
When I examine the Righties behavior I also try to discern explicit goals (what they say they want to do) from the implicit goals that are manifest in what they actually do. When there is contradiction then I know there is inauthentic action/reaction.
I believe that using outrage to qualify militancy is a nuance of the authoritarian “strict father” model that George Lakoff describes. And at the same time I know us Lefties are just as prone to being sucked into the Micro- and not maintaining a perspective that includes the Macro–we don’t hold ourselves to the RGT frame.
But in addition to all that, Righties/conservatives, whatever, evidence very little “observing self—means that they do not cultivate, or use awareness of their strengths and limitations in the context of the group as a whole, rather only, their own particular subgroup. The result is to split-off the differences and justify by vilification, scapegoating and defensive projections.
Let me see if I follow Maha & Professor Bell’s – for lack of a better term – logic in regards to the current WoT. Unlike 9/11, the attack on Pearl Harbor justified the entrance into WWII, but only because the Japanese had an organized army/navy & troop numbers enough to react to. It is the size & organization of who performs the attacks & not the attacks themselves that is the qualifying factor we should use in determining whether or not to return the favor or respond at all. So 9/11 should be treated as what… an act of vandalism or a case of large scale littering? Or are you using as a qualifier the actual number of deaths involved? What a message to send, if you don’t kill x number of Americans or innocent civilians in x amount of time, we will not respond militarily, because we can’t justify defending ourselves unless you match the number of Russians killed by Hitler. Funny thing how the left always seems to work back around to the Nazi’s or the communists… apparently anything short of those stunning benchmarks just isn’t worth the cost or their time. That is when they aren’t defending them & condemning Christians aka “wingers”or the US that is. Does this mean that the US should have re-responded after the fall of Saigon & to the murder of the hundreds of thousands of civilians in Cambodia or is the qualifier only for white people?
Deleted. Please see Commenting rules.
Where were the German people when Hitler began to aggress? Where were the German people when Hitler began to slaughter thousands of innocent people under cover of ‘God, racism and patriotism’?
These are the questions that need to be pondered more than what other countries did in response to Hitler’s ego-mania….. the German people were sheep who allowed that dictatorial little man to continue and increase his evil destruction. Today, our own dictatorial little man cannot even distinguish ‘who is the his latest enemy of the day’: Iraqis? Iranis? OBL? [hmmmph], nomads in southern Somalia? Democrats?
I think you guys might be right. It got me thinking about how many innocent victims get killed while being mugged or raped because they fought back, or more importantly because the perp didn’t want to leave any witness because of the severity of the punishment if caught.
I’m all for the perps getting caught. (Where is Osama, by the way?) However, very little of what we’re doing in the Middle East right now has anything whatsoever to do with catching “perps.”
(Gawd, are these people even bright enough to tie their own shoes?)
I agree, it is about preventing the “perps†from getting in a position to perpetrate any more crimes – regardless of the “body count.”
Let me see if I follow Maha & Professor Bell’s – for lack of a better term – logic in regards to the current WoT. Unlike 9/11, the attack on Pearl Harbor justified the entrance into WWII, but only because the Japanese had an organized army/navy & troop numbers enough to react to. It is the size & organization of who performs the attacks & not the attacks themselves that is the qualifying factor we should use in determining whether or not to return the favor or respond at all.
Let’s turn that around. What might have happened had George Bush been President in 1941 and had responded to Pearl Harbor the same way he responded to 9/11?
After making some nice speaches and maybe sending to special ops to Okinawa to reinforce an insurgency against the Emperor, he would have abandoned war with Japan entirely and invaded Peru.
I’m all for fighting back. But you people — you IDIOTS — continue to equate the invasion of Iraq with “fighting back.” Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Nothing. We abandoned the hunt for bin Laden and started some dadblamed war that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.
As I recall, the NY times headline on 9/12 was “U.S. Attacked.” I didn’t understand then, and still don’t, how a terrorist bombing – albeit and very large and successful one – constituted an attack on the United States. But once that meme was planted, it never seemed to go away.
I still maintain it was a monumental mistake to call this a “war” on terrorism. We gave Bin Laden and his ilk the status of holy warriors – exactly what they wanted. We should have called them what they were and are: psychopathic murderers.
I agree, it is about preventing the “perps†from getting in a position to perpetrate any more crimes – regardless of the “body count.”
If that’s what we were actually doing you might have an argument. In fact, all we’re doing is making more enemies faster than we can shoot them.
Anyone who has ever for a second believed that fighting “them” over there means we don’t have to fight them here needs to get in line for a brain. Al Qaeda has only a small force in Iraq, and jihadists are in no way constrained by our fighting there. Certainly it didn’t stop them in London or Madrid, did it?
While it is certainly true that “not every enemy is in fact a threat to our existence”, it does not follow that we should ignore all threats that do not reach the threshold of being “a threat to our existence.â€
1979, Islamic radicals kidnaps dozen plus US citizens for a year…
1983, Hezbollah murders 20+ US military men…
1993, Al-Qaeda blows up the WTC, 6 dead, 100s injured…
1996, 200 American servicemen murdered by Al-Q in Saudi Arabia…
1996, 200 American citizens murdered by Al-Q in Africa
2000, 17 US navymen murdered by Al-Q…
2001, 9-11….
Your solution is to do nothing? Is there some sort of magic formula that will allow us to determine the ‘proportionate’ response? What would that response be?
Your solution is to do nothing? Is there some sort of magic formula that will allow us to determine the ‘proportionate’ response? What would that response be?
The solution is to fight smart, not stupid. All we’ve done in Iraq is create more enemies who hate us with even greater intensity, wear down our military’s effectiveness, destroy whatever good will our country enjoyed around the world, and enrich anyone connected with the defense industry and the Republicans in charge.
And let’s not forget the accelerated erosion of liberties and Constitutional protections at home. Let’s also not forget the opportunity cost, the massive amounts of money and materiale and attention thrown down this rathole that could’ve been spent on fixing serious problems at home, such as health care, global warming, ensuring our country’s competitiveness vis a vis other nations around the world, etc.
Bin Laden succeeded beyond his wildest dreams in baiting our country into a collossal quagmire.
Let’s also not forget the opportunity cost, the massive amounts of money and materiale (sic) and attention thrown down this rathole (sic) that could’ve been spent on fixing serious problems at home, such as health care, global warming, ensuring our country’s competitiveness vis a vis other nations around the world, etc.
I personally much prefer our government spending time, treasure, and blood putting bullets into the heads of our foreign enemies, rather than attempting to “fix” “issues” that would be better off having less governmental intervention.
I personally much prefer our government spending time, treasure, and blood putting bullets into the heads of our foreign enemies, rather than attempting to “fix†“issues†that would be better off having less governmental intervention.
You’re welcome to your opinion, but in mine, it’s the lack of government intervention that’s facilitated or enabled these issues to metastatize.
Also, it’s not either/or. I agree with you that our government should be putting bullets into those who would destroy us, but the way we’re doing it now is tremendously expensive (in all senses of the word) and counterproductive – it’s increasing instead of diminishing the problem. Were we dealing with this problem in a more effective way, we would have resources to spare for problems at home.
Wow, from the spittle-flecked comments this post received, I can sure see that 9/11 is all the spittle-flingers have going for them. There was so much to think about in the original post, and yet so much thought-free response to it.
After making some nice speaches and maybe sending to special ops to Okinawa to reinforce an insurgency against the Emperor, he would have abandoned war with Japan entirely and invaded Peru.
or perhaps Guadalcanal.
BTW, is the war against al-Quaeda and the Taliban abandoned? As far as I remember it’s still going on. I know you don’t see it on TV so I can understand why you think it’s abandoned. Because if it’s not on TV, it don’t exist.
While it is certainly true that “not every enemy is in fact a threat to our existenceâ€, it does not follow that we should ignore all threats that do not reach the threshold of being “a threat to our existence.â€
See, this is exactly what’s wrong with the rightie brain. They see only two ways to deal with problems — destroy them or ignore them. This is what we call “stupid.”
Son, nobody says we should ignore all threats. The point is that we are allowing the fear of terrorism into making us self-destruct. This is “stupid.” My suggestion is that we stop being “stupid.”
Hmmm: See comment #42.
perhaps Guadalcanal.
No, not comparable. Japanese troops occupied Guadacanal. Thus, it would make sense to invade it. Nothing like the invasion of Iraq.
BTW, is the war against al-Quaeda and the Taliban abandoned? As far as I remember it’s still going on.
Only in a half-assed way. Too much of our focus and resources are being diverted by Bush’s Folly in Iraq.
These people who think that the totality of the available options in fighting back against the enemies of the USA who perpetrated 9/11 were (a) invade Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, or (b) do nothing … are just weird.
I dunno, maybe it’s just a case of insufficient mental flexibility. They simply can’t understand that the sufficient, correct response to — a small group of non-state actors with not much “traditional” power who wish to use the tactic of terrorism against us — probably WILL involve violence of some sort, probably WILL involve our military in some capacity, but almost certainly WILL NOT look like a “traditional” war.
Therefore if what you actually DID, does in fact look like a “traditional” war, you probably did it wrong.
There were a large number of ways we could have reacted to the 9/11 attacks. Using air power to facilitate the overthrow of the Taliban, and special forces to try to sift through the broken remnants in order to get at the shattered al Queda organization in Afghanistan was a good idea. Of course, that was a plan left over from the final days of the Clinton administration, so I would expect it to be good.
Mostly abandoning that effort in order to invade Iraq, who had nothing to do with 9/11 and no ties to al Queda, was the stupidest possible next move. Of course, THAT one was the brain-child of the neocons in charge now, so it’s to be expected.
How is this a difficult concept? How is it so hard to believe that there might be a third (and fourth and fifth and a hundred and seventh) option to the invade/do nothing dichotomy?
-me
[Deleted; please consult rules for commenting, especially #7b — maha]
#8 – that isn’t common sense, that’s a rhetorical metaphor. Mistaking anecdotes and ideology for a practical military strategy is much of the substance of the argument here. American military cannot resolve a tribal conflicts between different kinds of islam, whether baghdad is secured by a “surge” or not.
Much of what has been seen from the right-leaning here since i commented this morning amounts to a series of examples of rhetorical “baloney” as per Carl Sagan. (see: common fallacies of logic and rhetoric, excluded middle”
http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
“return the favor or respond at all” “you’d rather wait until a stalingrad seige before doing anything at all” and the like.
insufficient mental flexibility sounds about right to me.
After making some nice speaches and maybe sending to special ops to Okinawa to reinforce an insurgency against the Emperor, he would have abandoned war with Japan entirely and invaded Peru.
Yup and I bet the Peruvians are damn grateful junior Bush wasn’t around then. 🙂
As a ..uh..what do you call it? “rightie”, I’ll address the main points of Bell’s document before I go on with the “Why Iraq” part of this conversation or why it was not “call up all the states and raid known terrorists organizations/cells” etc.
First, the “Enlightenment” didn’t really create or determine the extent of carnage we’d accept in war nor did it provide the onus for militarization. Concepts of conducting war “humanely” are pre-Enlightenment. the most notable “pre-enlightenment” “humane war” was conducted in the middle ages between nobles (often referred to as “chivlary”). It had little to do with “humanity” or “honor” and everything to do with maintaining a power structure and leaving open the possibility of an alliance or simply a political resolution to the conflict. Had the nobles gone around and willy nilly killed each other as often as they committed war, they would have effectively killed off the ruling class and endangered every noble’s ability to maintain power.
That is, in effect, what Enlightenment is to modern warfare. It didn’t change how we conduct war or why, it’s simply a nice cover that is used to explain or excuse acts of violence beyond the known scope of human warfare.
For instance, one of the best examples of the “Enlightenment” used to explain or excuse would be the manufacturer of the first machine gun who, about creating it, imagined that the ability to kill so many so quickly, would quickly end war. Instead, the invention caused states to develop even greater armies armed with even greater weapons that killed even more men than ever experienced before.
Now, you must ask yourself, did the inventor of the Machine Gun really believe that he would end wars with a new and more terrible weapon? Or, did his own guilt over creating such a killing machine require assaugement? If not for the “Enlightenment”, would he, as an inventor of weapons like all those before him, have imagined himself creating a “humane” weapon or acting on behalf of humanity?
The fact of the matter is, the weapon as it was produced, was largely used at the behest of the state to enforce the state’s will. It had little to do with whether an individual soldier could effectively end a war or decrease the amount of human suffering.
This same idealism can be seen in discussions about Sheridan’s ride through the South. Was the act of total war brought upon the south an attempt to quickly and “humanely” end the war to end the terrible suffering, deaths and casualties? Or, was it because the state (Union) could ill afford to continue the war at such a pace, not simply humanly, but materially and monetarily?
The employment of the A-Bomb and Fire Bombing during WWII are often couched in the same terms, but I find that to be idealistic and niave. States employ weapons and tactics in order to further their chances of “winning” the war or, better yet, surviving the war economically, militarily, politically and physically (ie, border and land), not in service of some grand idealism like humanity and Enlightenment. The fact that it may end a war more quickly and, thus, spare the “human cost” is a side benefit, not the reason, however much we may try to rationalize the actions before, during and after.
Lord, what fools these bitter-enders be. Reminds me of that great line of Jamie Lee Curtis’s, “No, Otto, apes can read philosophy… they just can’t understand it.”
We crazy lefties have asked and asked the following questions for the past five years, getting only accusations from the trolls, never answers. But what the hell:
1) So where is Osama bin Ladin, and why the hell is he still alive?
2) Why was he alive to instigate attacks on Bali (twice) and Madrid, and London?
3) Why are we letting Afghanistan fall back into the hands of the Taliban?
4) Why are we letting NATO carry the can in Afghanistan?
5) Why have we let religious extremists who share the jihadists’ pet hates shape public discourse in the U.S.?
6) Why is the ex-CIA Director on whose watch the CIA trained bin Laden in insurgency, now our Secretary of Defense?
7) Why did the federal response to Hurricane Katrina look like the aftermath of a terrorist attack?
8) How does destroying Constitutional law in the U.S. “preserve our way of life”?
9) Why are Americans having bake sales to buy equipment for our troops, while Cheney’s retirement fund at Halliburton increases by +3000%?
I could go on and on, but my life calls.