9/11/01 - 09 'Tank Thoughts

[Kil Tyme]

Last night I watched some 9/11 show on History Channel; I think it was called "The 102 minutes that changed America". Amazing footage from right before the first plane hit to the fall of the final Tower; stuff I never saw before: all video without 3rd person narration; only sounds and talk from various people who filmed what they saw and the conversations of those around them at the time. And I groaned all over again along with the video people as we saw person after person jumping out the windows to get away from the flames and the long fall to the ground.

My recollections are always about the pentagon, which I was in at the time, but all these shows focus on the Twin Towers, which actually did have more of an impact. I remember running out of the pentagon and seeing the flames around the corner and then watching the building burn for a couple hours thinking this will be big news tonight. I didn't know the towers were hit, too and fallen until a couple hours later when I saw tons of other folks near various cars where I parked listening to the radio.

Anyway, I still can't bring myself to watch the "United 93" movie. Watching that show last night I was agonizing about how little these folks know, who just saw the first plane hit and then the second, just how worse it is going to get within the two hours, let alone the next few years.

Lastly, I think we are just about as secure as we can get, for good or bad, for an open society. Some measures were tried, like the Patriot Act, that got so many folks fired up against it. Other things were instituted that seem more like inconviences, but I'm sure they help. I'm also sure other policy changes will occur to try to protect us; and some of those might help. I think our best bet are techological innovations that can help thwart attacks from happening, but in the end something akin to this is likely to happen again.

[Avatar]

Why not a day of service on Labor day? Memorial Day?

Over here, Mandela's birthday is now a public holiday, and when it was announced, he requested that if people want to celebrate it, they should make it a day of service, and donate some of their time to community service or whatever. In fact, he asked that people donate 1 minute of their time for every year he was in jail. And a lot of people did. In fact, most of them did more than that.

Pretty good idea if you ask me.

--A

[Plissken]

9/11 was a kind of pivot point for me. I was already coming down from my youthful flirtation with Libertarianism (the Old School kind - Friedman, Rand, etc.), was still talking to the guys in Northern Washington who had been interviewed as being a part of the Patriot Groups after Ruby Ridge and Oklahoma (They weren't. They were just the guys who got interviewed.), and I was thinking maybe my political views weren't quite in line with my reality as a blue collar, newly single full time father...

There were quite a few more steps along my journey to where I am now, but I remember calling in late to work when the second plane hit, so I could watch the news. And I remember feeling, for the first time since my childhood, like I was a member of something important and big. I felt like an American. And, for the first time ever, that feeling was accompanied by a sense of loss and fear. And anger. And the need for revenge.

And then, 9/12 came. I still felt like an American. But now, I knew that we would temper our need for revenge with our sense of justice. I knew we would overcome our fear and loss. I knew we would come out of this tragedy more united than we had been in generations, and we would show the world what a truly United America could do in the face of our tragedies. We would make the world safer, we would come together and overcome the rancor and division the Lewinsky scandal had both caused and expressed...

And then -

Nearly every day since has provided me another opportunity to shed another piece of that idealism.

[ParanoiA]

And then, 9/12 came. I still felt like an American. But now, I knew that we would temper our need for revenge with our sense of justice. I knew we would overcome our fear and loss. I knew we would come out of this tragedy more united than we had been in generations, and we would show the world what a truly United America could do in the face of our tragedies. We would make the world safer...

I'm curious. What exactly did you think would happen that would do the above, short of military and home security actions?

Not being contentious with you actually, it's just that statements like "making the world safer" just creep me out. When I hear a politician say that, the first thing I'm thinking is 'great, who are you going to screw to do that?'

Short of libertarian like anti-imperialism and free trade, I'm not sure what actions one would have in mind that don't invest in military operations and abridged freedoms here at home, both of which seem to resemble the nature of the warning in your signature.

9/11 pissed me off. When I watch these poor people jumping from those burning buildings, watched the towers collapse while trying to take in the hidden fact that I'm watching thousands of people die right there in one moment, and I see their loved ones relate their stories and goodbye phone calls they can barely even talk about, and when I consider that doesn't even include the Pentagon and horror-heroism of flight 93 - all of these innocent people made to die traumatically in the worst of conditions - it pisses me off.

The last thing I ever wanted was to increase our investment in that part of the world. As childish as it may be, I'd prefer turning my back and shunning the part of the world that can't interface with a modern, rational power. I just don't see how their culture will ever tolerate the west. I'm not talking about extremism, I'm talking about the nature of the muslim religion and its conflicts with our value system and our poor imperialist image - both of which have some merit. As much as I support free trade...

[Lord Mhoram]

I was in 6th grade on 9/11. To watch it occur on television was, to use a cliche, to quite literally watch history unfolding. It remains the most important single date in American history to occur during my lifetime. It was for me, as for everyone, a series of surreal, nightmarish, frightening images. I wish I could assign to that date some sort of awakened political consciousness; I can't, having been too young at the time, but I can say that I felt a profound sense of American identity. If I may, I will attempt to speak for my generation for a second. In the history of the development of my political consciousness, such as it is, 9/11 is not the central event. Iraq is. I think many of my peers agree with me; certainly most kids my age who I know share that view, whether consciously or not. I supported Iraq in 7th grade, the year we invaded; I think it was around 9th grade that I started opposing it. By 10th grade it stood against practically all my political ideals, as it does now (sophomore year of college).

Why does Iraq overshadow 9/11 to such an extent? It is this overshadowing that I think in part explains much of the complacency and unfortunate ambivalence many here are expressing in all honesty. Because Iraq was the direct consequence of our experience on 9/11. 9/11 was a horrific, traumatic event for this country and everyone who lives here. But it was one day. It was essentially one event, one event which has been constantly replayed in the media. Does anyone else remember the constant recursion of the planes crashing into the towers in the months following 9/11? I certainly do. So it was with strange desensitization that I recently saw that footage for the first time in several years played on CNN when watching an obituary piece on Teddy Kennedy with my parents back in Boston last month, before I went back to Connecticut for school. I realized yesterday on the anniversary, as many here have said, that it has receded from the frontlines of my mind, so to speak.

Because as I said, the event happened quickly, and it passed. To take an historical analogy, Pearl Harbor is remembered as a "day of infamy" by Americans, but of much larger importance to our collective sense of history is the totality of the Second World War, which came as a direct result of Pearl Harbor. This establishes, I think, a maxim that the extended period of consequence is more memorable than the precipitating event. The flaw in that analogy to 9/11-cum-Iraq, however, is that we remember that period with pride, the "greatest generation," the last window where we completely and totally possessed a moral mandate and made good on it in a commensurate manner, seizing an historical moment of adversity and triumphing, both pragmatically and morally.

In the wake of 9/11, we howled. We hounded our attackers to Afghanistan, promising to "smoke 'em out of their caves." It is a frequently made claim in commentary that Afghanistan is the "forgotten war" because it was won so seemingly easily, the Taliban running to the wilds of Pakistan and an honest-looking, Western-educated President quickly put in their place. And then, more importantly for the "forgotten war" crowd, it became so tedious, consisting as it does now of sharply defined missions of search and seizure, anonymous bombings, and unglamorous nation-building.

True enough. But there's another reason why Afghanistan is the forgotten war. Because it was overshadowed, as 9/11 was, by the Bush administration's decision to seize the unity of the country following 9/11 and the collective sense of dread of the Middle East region to invade and occupy Iraq. What followed was not only mismanagement of the most shameful sense, with improperly armed and armored American soldiers going into a war whose principal prosecutors had no conception of how to fight it, with brutal collateral damage, laws broken, reputations destroyed, a ruined cultural heritage, misplaced and killed refugees, and disgusting prison practices, but also a shocking record of deceit, artifice, and dishonesty.

So the legacy of 9/11 is something with which we are literally still grappling. How horrific and wrong 9/11 was is not in question. But any ambivalence about it on the part of so many Americans is directly tied to that longer, in many ways more traumatic tragedy into which we were led as a direct consequence of that terrible day.

[Plissken]

And then, 9/12 came. I still felt like an American. But now, I knew that we would temper our need for revenge with our sense of justice. I knew we would overcome our fear and loss. I knew we would come out of this tragedy more united than we had been in generations, and we would show the world what a truly United America could do in the face of our tragedies. We would make the world safer...

I'm curious. What exactly did you think would happen that would do the above, short of military and home security actions?

Not being contentious with you actually, it's just that statements like "making the world safer" just creep me out. When I hear a politician say that, the first thing I'm thinking is 'great, who are you going to screw to do that?'

Short of libertarian like anti-imperialism and free trade, I'm not sure what actions one would have in mind that don't invest in military operations and abridged freedoms here at home, both of which seem to resemble the nature of the warning in your signature.

...Which is why that signature is there.

I imagined we would redefine our trade relationships with countries that sponsor terrorism in the rest of the world, strengthen our alliances with countries plagued by (and those countries infested with) terrorists, and investigate, arrest, try, and convict those who engage in the tactic and crime of terrorism.

[Tjol]

Plissken, the rest of the world, with a few exceptions, didn't really choose to participate in the whole smoking out terrorism and those who would practice it. It became another opportunity to use social relatavism as an excuse to do nothing.

Did our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan succesfully discourage terrorism as a methodology of warfare? No, I wouldn't pretend that. It seemed to have an effect for a month or two, but after that, as leaders (and their electorates) folded all over the world when confronted with the decision between standing and fighting or bowing and submitting to the methodology of terrorism, all the despots of the world smelled blood, and took advantage by being more ambitious.

I don't think it's the USA alone that dropped the ball on what should have been the western world's number one goal post 9/11/01. It's too much like Europe's post world war one societal fatigue all over again, that after suffering one event of catastrophic violence, everyone puts there blinders on and pretends there is nothing else out there so dangerous as to need being confronted, and if there is, we don't want to admit it until it's too late for anything to be done about it.

The call to "understand" and to try hard to not "offend" didn't do much to prevent any number of atrocities that have since occured, whether it's Britian, Spain, or the Netherlands. But we still want to pretend that if we all just hold hands and be more tolerant, even of especially intolerant cultures, that there's really nothing to be feared. It's a higher priority to feel good about ourselves and our actions, than to confront those that embrace the methodology of terrorism. No one wants to acknowledge that anything can be evil, and if terrorism isn't evil, why that's a fine excuse to not bother trying to discourage it.

[finn]

I reckon the "few exceptions" would probably expect a bit more respect than a casual aside. Those "few exceptions" have committed proportionally and by the way, committed extremely high calibre personnel that provided the pathfinding and target tagging required for the long range weaponary, This function was performed in the two Gulf Wars by the SAS of both Britain and the ANZAC contingents. The speed of both campaigns was contingent on these ground forces getting close to enemy positions, tagging them and then getting out........before they took too much friendly fire.

Did our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan succesfully discourage terrorism as a methodology of warfare?

Are you assuming that that was its intent?

Notwithstanding that your mates/"few exceptions" in the UK and NZ and OZ stood with you, despite concerns over the "Number One Goal": the ball was dropped by the US because the "Number One Goal" was in fact something other than "smoking out terrorism". Even in the face of that your mates stood with you and are still taking casualties in Afghanistan and are pursuing terrorism at home through intelligence and police investigation, with a number of notable successes.

By all means feel the euphoria of shared grief but hold off on the Paranoia please? (No pun intended P)

[Plissken]

Plissken, the rest of the world, with a few exceptions, didn't really choose to participate in the whole smoking out terrorism and those who would practice it. It became another opportunity to use social relatavism as an excuse to do nothing.

Did our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan succesfully discourage terrorism as a methodology of warfare? No, I wouldn't pretend that. It seemed to have an effect for a month or two, but after that, as leaders (and their electorates) folded all over the world when confronted with the decision between standing and fighting or bowing and submitting to the methodology of terrorism, all the despots of the world smelled blood, and took advantage by being more ambitious.

I don't think it's the USA alone that dropped the ball on what should have been the western world's number one goal post 9/11/01. It's too much like Europe's post world war one societal fatigue all over again, that after suffering one event of catastrophic violence, everyone puts there blinders on and pretends there is nothing else out there so dangerous as to need being confronted, and if there is, we don't want to admit it until it's too late for anything to be done about it.

The call to "understand" and to try hard to not "offend" didn't do much to prevent any number of atrocities that have since occured, whether it's Britian, Spain, or the Netherlands. But we still want to pretend that if we all just hold hands and be more tolerant, even of especially intolerant cultures, that there's really nothing to be feared. It's a higher priority to feel good about ourselves and our actions, than to confront those that embrace the methodology of terrorism. No one wants to acknowledge that anything can be evil, and if terrorism isn't evil, why that's a fine excuse to not bother trying to discourage it.

I think you're presenting a false choice here. Just because our allies support for the re-invasion of a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks wasn't all that you or the Bush Admin wanted doesn't mean that they "didn't really choose to participate in the whole smoking out terrorism and those who would practice it" or that their only other choices were to "to use social relatavism as an excuse to do nothing" or to ""understand" and to try hard to not "offend"".

I presented what I thought our country would do - which was to go down to the Afghanistan/Pakistan border and smoke the bastards out, and bring them to submission in a public trial. The fact that our efforts were spent building support for our enemies in an final overthrow of a regime that our enemies felt was below their contempt is hardly worth an indictment of the strength of our allies' support (or fuel for some mis-guided tirade against Liberal sensitivities) - indeed, they are worthy of only commendation for their loyalty even against their better judgement.

[Tjol]

I reckon the "few exceptions" would probably expect a bit more respect than a casual aside.

I didn't mean to disregard those who actually did stand up and fight. I meant to suggest that their number is insignficant when put side by side with the number of those countries who opted to do nothing. I hold the military members of Australia and the UK, in high regard for what they've given and most of Eastern Europe in high regard for what they continue to give. Likewise, I hold members of those militaries that at least got involved with the humanitarian effort in high regard as well (Italy, Germany, Japan are those that I most immediately recall).

I'm completely soured on the UN though, which seemed more interested in perpetuating oil for food...err dollars, than in doing something about those countries (or factions within countries), which employ terrorist methodologies.

[Tjol]

I think you're presenting a false choice here. Just because our allies support for the re-invasion of a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks wasn't all that you or the Bush Admin wanted doesn't mean that they "didn't really choose to participate in the whole smoking out terrorism and those who would practice it" or that their only other choices were to "to use social relatavism as an excuse to do nothing" or to ""understand" and to try hard to not "offend"".

I'm not talking about Iraq. I'm talking about taking a general stand against those countries that would employ terrorism enthusiastically. They pretty much co-occured as stances for those leaders that opted to submit.

For example what's 'the world' doing right now about the fine muslim folks murdering non-muslims in eastern Africa? I mean, besides passing resolutions against Israel and the US ad nauseam?

What's the world doing about China's treatment of it's own people? I mean besides awarding it the Olympics, and instructing all journalists to observe the Chinese polit bureaus instructions?

Fail. Fail. Fail.

These leaders pretended to be principled, that they were standing against the US invasion of Iraq. But strangely, the very moment they bowed out of Iraq, they were also bowing out of confronting the proselytisers and practicers of terrorism. You know, because it was really a principled stand they were taking, rather than tucking tail.

edit:The UK and Australia alone made any commitment to Afghanistan after their electorate essentially said they didn't want any part of Iraq. Everyone else, pulled troops from both fields, and from any other field for that matter, when they claimed to be cleaning their hands of the 'US invasion'.

(Much like the benefiters of oil for food graft in the UN, it wasn't that they were protesting losing their blood money from Saddam, it was all based on sincerest principle.)

[Plissken]

I'm confused - are you talking about Iraq, or not?

[Avatar]

I think the world saw it as an American problem. Plenty of other countries experienced terrorism for years...enough that they became at least partly inured to it. Which may even have had the result of reducing it. Terrorists are, afterall, out for the reaction. The attention, as it were.

And enough countries disagreed with the necessity of an Iraqi invasion (under the proposed justification), that they probably didn't feel the need to participate. Certainly, that's where the support for US military force dried up...there was plenty of support, even if mostly moral or tacit, for an invasion of Afghanistan. It was just the Iraq question that started to muddy the waters.

And it certainly seemed unlikely that the US needed help in tiny, unequipped Afghanistan. And technically, they didn't.

I don't think that equates to a blanket condoning of terrorism, which is what appears to have been suggested.

--A

[Tjol]

I'm confused - are you talking about Iraq, or not?

I'm not talking about Iraq, but Iraq is the smokescreen that was used to excuse participation in the larger concern, the methodology of terrorism.

If the majority of the modern world was working to discourage terrorism through action (words will be babbled endlessly by politicians of course, because a politican is to babbling as a water is to wet.) but not participating in Iraq, they still would be fighting the good fight in my opinion.

[stonemaybe]

Tjol wrote:

If the majority of the modern world was working to discourage terrorism through action (words will be babbled endlessly by politicians of course, because a politican is to babbling as a water is to wet.) but not participating in Iraq, they still would be fighting the good fight in my opinion.

Perhps the majority of the modern world draws the line at mass civilian slaughter, knowing that it will actually strengthen the terrorists' hand, rather than weaken it.

[Tjol]

Tjol wrote:

If the majority of the modern world was working to discourage terrorism through action (words will be babbled endlessly by politicians of course, because a politican is to babbling as a water is to wet.) but not participating in Iraq, they still would be fighting the good fight in my opinion.

Perhps the majority of the modern world draws the line at mass civilian slaughter, knowing that it will actually strengthen the terrorists' hand, rather than weaken it.

Are you also of the conclusion that terrorism can be adressed through politics and tea? Or do you think that the slaughter of civillians is a red herring to distract people from those leaders' unwillingness to actually do any heavy lifting?

[Lord Mhoram]

It seems to me that not participating in the Iraq invasion was a good first step in addressing international terrorism, since it's well documented and well understood that Iraq increased the threat of international terrorism. This was predicted before the invasion as well.

[sindatur]

Tjol wrote:

If the majority of the modern world was working to discourage terrorism through action (words will be babbled endlessly by politicians of course, because a politican is to babbling as a water is to wet.) but not participating in Iraq, they still would be fighting the good fight in my opinion.

Perhps the majority of the modern world draws the line at mass civilian slaughter, knowing that it will actually strengthen the terrorists' hand, rather than weaken it.

Are you also of the conclusion that terrorism can be adressed through politics and tea? Or do you think that the slaughter of civillians is a red herring to distract people from those leaders' unwillingness to actually do any heavy lifting?

Tjol, the problem was that the rest of the world believed (and rightly so it's now been proven) that Iraq had nothing to do with the Terrorist attack, nor with Al Quaeda (at elast not before the invasion). Sure, he terroried his own people, and promoted Terror against Israel, but, not directly related to our "International good will to invade Afghanistan"

[Tjol]

It seems to me that not participating in the Iraq invasion was a good first step in addressing international terrorism, since it's well documented and well understood that Iraq increased the threat of international terrorism. This was predicted before the invasion as well.

I don't see it as a foregone conclusion but rather one of the interpretations that obviously was politically convenient. After 9/11 it was in general predicted that international terrorism would increase, regardless of invading Iraq, you do remember that right?

[Tjol]

Tjol wrote: Perhps the majority of the modern world draws the line at mass civilian slaughter, knowing that it will actually strengthen the terrorists' hand, rather than weaken it.

Are you also of the conclusion that terrorism can be adressed through politics and tea? Or do you think that the slaughter of civillians is a red herring to distract people from those leaders' unwillingness to actually do any heavy lifting?

Tjol, the problem was that the rest of the world believed (and rightly so it's now been proven) that Iraq had nothing to do with the Terrorist attack, nor with Al Quaeda (at elast not before the invasion). Sure, he terroried his own people, and promoted Terror against Israel, but, not directly related to our "International good will to invade Afghanistan"

Regardless, Iraq was used as an excuse to not participate in any other actions against promoters of terrorism as a military methodology. People didn't bow out of Iraq and then spend their energy against some more worthy target, right?

That's what I'm talking about.