9/11 Thoughts
Well, it wouldn't be a blog without them.
It has crossed my mind that if we are to give Bush and company grief about the mishandling of the Iraq war and the general war on terror - specifically the torture policies - should we also be giving him credit for the fact that we haven't been attacked in five years? Should we also give them credit for not allowing severe civil liberty infringements, like internment camps?
Both of these were legitimate worries in the aftermath of 9/11, and although there was the outrage over the wiretapping, let's be honest, there hasn't been widespread mistreatment of Muslims within this country by either the government or the people. Idiots will point a few hate crimes, but no widespread issues have come up, despite everyone keeping their eyes peeled for them. (The press would love such a story).
From 1993 there were escalating attacks against America. 1993 - World Trade Center then five years later the two Embassy bombings in 1998, then two years later the Cole Bombing in 2000, and then 1 year later, 9/11. Since then: Nada. Nothing. The trend reversed.
Of course, it is my obligation to state that it could all change tomorrow with another attack.
But wasn't part of the idea of the Iraq war to take the fight away from America and fight it out in the Middle East with our troops rather than bracing for sneak attacks against our civilians? Would we be silly to say that's exactly what's happening?
Many claim that Iraq is spawning a new generation of Jihadists that hate America. Maybe it's true. But if they can't or aren't able to attack us, does it matter?
And will they, once they realize their inability to strike blows at us and claim victory, continue to fight?
Maybe it's working this way.... More borderline Jihadis become radicalized over the Iraq war, and instead of festering with resentment and anger for years and some of them turning into potential al queda recruits, they all go to Iraq where they either kill themselves or get killed by the Marines.
Some survive and plot terror attacks against the US, but without the operational base of Al Queda to fund them and to provide cheerleading, they can't really get their acts together. They try to plan small scale, localized attacks, but the whole world is more aware of the terror threat, so even that becomes tougher. Eventually, the either get thrown in jail for plots (which now have stiffer penalties), or they grow tired of having no successes to point to, no comrades to share their stories with. They don't have a place to go and train, Afghanistan, they don't have a single source of money, they don't have a place to find expertise, to compete, to have a sense of belonging.
I don't know. I do know Iraq is messy and Bush deserves some of the blame. I also know America hasn't been attacked by a determined foe in five years, and so I imagine Bush deserves some of the credit.
7 comments:
In order to dole out credit to Bush, one has to distinguish between the obvious changes that would be made after 9-11, changes that were common sense, and changes that specifically were the result of Bush policies. And when assessing the record of Bush, you might want to factor in the 2500 dead soldiers, and the 15,000 or so that are maimed, blinded, and traumatized, rather than just referring to Iraq as "messy".
As for your general analysis of Bush's strategy, I recommend you watch an episode of the American "Office" called "Conflict Resolution". Steve Carrell dissents from the regular HR guy's method of dealing with conflic and decides that rather have an office with low-level tension lurking, he will hold cage matches in conference room in which he referees resolutions between the feuding parties. The episode speaks for itself as to which method reaps more peace in the end.
yes, of course, the dead soldiers argument. tough to respond to that one. i think they died for a worthy cause.
i wonder - are the "obvious" changes after 9/11 different than the "obvious" changes after the embassy and the cole bombings?
frankly, i don't think any changes after 9/11 were "obvious," i think it was clear we had to change something, but it wasn't obvious how to react without overreacting and how to get big organizations to change their way of doing things.
anyhow, maybe it's just easier to join the bush sucks camp. i'd certainly have more friends.
I just think you should acknowledge 2500 Americans have been killed since 9-11, specifically from Bush's actions, instead of arguing as you do that Bush instituted some kind of peace. You especially need to do this since you factor in foreign embassy bombings and the Cole bombing, which occured on foreign soil, but you ignore the terrorist attacks on Americans in Iraq. What gives?
Regarding the homeland, you would also need to make the case that those 2500 lost lives in Iraq were essential to preventing an attack on American soil in the last five years. That's an argument I don't think you can make convincingly, since it is far more plausible that we could have had five years without an attack on American soil AND no dead soldiers in Iraq.
As for you losing friends due to your political beliefs- who needs those kinds of friends anyway? Good riddance, I say.
look, with respect to 2500 dead soldiers - i have no sure fire way of being able to measure human lives. i can't plug it into a math equation and say:
2500 dead in iraq - 1000 who would have died in training - 2000 innocents killed by saddam in the same time period (x 1/3 )( b/c how do you weigh an iraqi life vs. an american life) - 20000 people who would have been killed if this and this and this didn't happen.
i just can't do those kind of figures that would mathematically prove whether such action was justified or not. it also begs the further question whether math is an appropriate measurement - we could probably have total peace in the world if everyone just converted to islam and let bin laden rule. maybe the murder rate would be zero. sure we could live in a world like that, but there are other values that balance against the simple numbers of life and death and money spent.
anyhow, i've taken the position post-9/11 that inaction does not translate to a neutral position. in the case of the rwandian genocide, not a single american life was lost. but if you asked me whether 2500 american lives were lost protecting 800,000 rwandians who were victims of genocide - in hindsight, i'd say that was worth action.
similar arguments could be made in the case of iraq.
i'm also neglecting the notion of whether 1 of those american lives were my son, my relative, or myself. would it be worth giving up your own live to save, say 50 rwandians or kurds? would it be worth it to give up the life of one of your loved ones for 100 iraqis?
the answer to that question is: i don't know.
I understand that there in no math equation here, and that our own best attempts at equations may differ. But you left 2500 plus the wounded out of your original equation.
If inaction isn't nuetral, than why don't you and me spend more time helping the people in Africa right now? I'm not helping because I don't think I really can help them, and that I do more good for the world by acting on a local level. A person saying they support sending troops to the Sudan but who doesn't actually do anything to further the cause of sending troops is just as guilty of being inactive, in my opinion.
i'm not going to lie: the reason i don't help people in africa is because i'd rather spend my time becoming a filmmaker. and it's not because i think my films will some day help the world, it's because i like doing it.
is it my job to help the world? no. is it my responsibility to not harm the world? yes.
that being said, I can still have opinions and vote based upon values i think are important. because i don't help african's, i can still say, i think our government ought to. i might not be admirable in doing/saying this, but i can do and say it nonetheless.
the fact is, one person does not have that much power to affect change locally or nationally in the big scheme of things. everyone knows that. but what one person can do, i think, is choose to spend their time doing something they care about and are good at without messing with other people and impact those around them.
i don't think it'll change the world, but it'll make one little part of it better.
but sure, social workers and doctors and teachers do much more noble work than i do. doesn't mean it's onlly their opinion that counts.
I think you get into the question here of how the world is organized, so to speak. I have not problem going to a bar and buying a beer instead of volunteering at the local soup kitchen, because I have a pretty pro-capitalist view that I help more people by going to the bar than I do at the soup kitchen. It has to do with me supporting everything from bartender, the bar cleaners, the beer makers, the glass makers, the jukebox company, the beer delivery people, the people who make the trucks the delivery peole use, etc. And it is my hope that this process eventually filters back to Africa in some way, like perhaps at some point Africans will develop a decent textile or farming industry, and the delivery guy and bartender and myself will be buying food at the grocery store that comes from Africa.
I would disagree that social workers and teachers and doctors do more noble work than you do. Artists play an important role in society, as do bus drivers, and janitors, and stockbrokers, all in their own way. I think that people who take pride in their work and do the best job they can are the noble ones, irregardless of profession. The lazy film editor may have less of a direct effect on society than the lazy teacher. But a great editor is far more noble than a lazy teacher.
Plus, you can think about it from another perspective: I have a terrific janitor who cleans my room at school, helps me out with any maintainance issues. He could be a jerk, the kind that hates his job, but he doesn't act that way, and that is noble in itself, and he makes being a janitor just as important as any other job.
Post a Comment