Then & Now

Amazing how what's important in the world changes to match what W wants to do next.

I'm no military expert (far from it) but it seems to me that the invasion of Afghanistant was poorly executed. There was too much emphasis on air strikes and not enough on people on the ground, going about the grizzly business of killing the appropriate people. This has allowed the Taliban to simply fade away and then return when appropriate.

Presumably this strategy was adopted to reduce the risk to American armed services and decrease the number of body bags flying home (we all know how sqeamish the Bush admin. is about people seeing those). However, if you are going to invade a country you have to do it propery. This requires the commander in chief to face up to his responsibilities and accept the fact that American soldiers will be killed. This is what happens to soldiers - they die and no one should shy away from that. If an invasion is justified then this requires the sacrifice of life, sad as that may be.

Hypocrisy at its finest!

Not only too busy figuring out reasons to invade Iraq, but embarassed at having failed at his stated objective of capturing Bin Laden.

If Clinton had stopped Bin Laden during any of his several chances to do so, 9/11 wouldn't be a special day in our history. You nit pick as though you could do a better job, which is just blind arrogance. Get off Bush's back and deal with reality. Radical Muslim's have chosen to attack us and we need a united effort to defend ourselves, which we will never have as long as folks like you continue to live in a partisan fog.

Michael seems to have drunk the "Path to 9/11" coolade. Whatever about Clinton, Bush did say "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." after the attack.

Oh, and yeah, I may "nit pick". If you don't like it, you dont have to read it!

I suggest that the more important issue is what was done after 9/11, how we responded to it. It seems to me that the purpose of focusing the discourse on what happened before 9/11, apart from shifting the political blame, is to rationalize the assumption that "this means war," that the only possible course of action for the US was to launch the GWoT. Was this the only reasonable response, to start* (or rather continue) a perpetual war against an "ideology" that can only be won via an apocalyptic fight to the finish against a dichotomous, evil "other"? Could things have gone another way?

Thoughts, Michael, or . . . ?

*I say "start" because apart from the requirement of needing two to tango, we bear the larger responsibility on account of our far greater power (I know, we like to believe that a stateless, ostracized, cave-dweller constitutes a formidable opponent).

John Lynch,

I remember Bush saying that. I also remember him expanding on it by saying (I paraphrase here from memory) "This is not a war against any one individual. Certainly it is a fight against Al Qeada, but it is more than that. It is a fight against all terrorists and all states the support or encourage terrorism."

This is a note he has sounded again and again. You may not like Bush's policies, or his choice of targets, but he has been, and continues to be, extremely consistent. In fact, it is that consistency that you Bush haters refer to as "intransigence", right?

BTW, I have not see The path to 9/11. And I haven't had Kool-aid since I was a kid, which was before Jim Jones. But Kool-Aid got a bad name after that nut, who would no doubt have really liked radical Islam if he'd only known about it. Come to think of it, maybe he did know about it. It could easily have been his role model.

Michael

Jonathan,

You raise important issues.

What is the importance of examining the pre-9/11 record? I think there is a lot of merit to it related to understanding what we are up against and what we have done right or wrong along the way. But I agree with you that our response is the critical issue. The role of our examination of pre-9/11 events is to inform our ongoing response.

A series of terrorist actions were waged against the U.S. by radical Islamists over the past 15 years or so (I can reproduce the list and dates if you want). The terrorist acts escalated in severity and frequency. The US basically failed to respond at all. The Clinton administration, in fact, put in place some Chinese walls to keep the CIA out of domestic issues, on the theory that domestic spying was evil and dangerous - a view I happen to share. (Clinton had other, more sinister motivations, but I don't see that as especially pertinent to this discussion.) Unintended consequence: information about terrorists, especially but not only about, Bin Laden, escaped our notice. This is important, not because Clinton happened to be in office when some of it happened, but because it must inform our decisions about how to reorganize to better respond to a new threat: terrorism. We are always fighting the last war, it's human nature. We have been geared up to fight a monolithic nation state attack (either from within or without, meaning either from the Soviet Union or our own government). We need to gear up to fight radical Islamic terrorists, which work under different rules and constraints because they are not aligned with only one nation state. Understanding their past acts (stimuli) and our responses, or lack thereof, is critical feedback needed to allow us to change the system. - Don't look now, but there's some evolution going on here. :-)

You question whether the only possible response was to wage a "hot" war. I doubt it was the only possible response. But our earlier responses had been incentives and disincentives aimed at nation states, and proved ineffective. So it was certainly time for a change.

In many ways the war in Iraq has been an inspired move: it moved the venue outside the US, it greatly reduced the terrorists' ability to operate outside the mideast, and it has kept the terrorists preoccupied. The bottom line: no more attacks on the US. It is very important to note that this constitutes a break in the trend (the escalating series of attacks on the US). So far, it is working. Recent statements by Al Qeada indicate they intend to focus their terrorism in the mideast. So was it the only possible response? No. Was it the optimum response? How can we know? Has it been effective enough to stop direct attacks on the US? Yes. Is that good? Yes.

You say "start", but we didn't start this, the Islamic terrorists started it more than 15 years ago.

Your point about an ostracized cave dwelling opponent is correct, except that (as Bush made clear in the comment that John Lynch found difficult to understand) Bin Laden is not really the opponent, and because the dynamics of the conflict have changed. Bin Laden is a temporal player, but the real opponent is radical Islam, regardless of who happens to be carrying that torch at any given moment. And radical Islam is a very serious threat. You didn't mention it, but somewhat related to this is the nature of our modern, technological, urban society. The thought that these opponents are small and less capable or less powerful (than we are) is based on an obsolete paradigm - that of nation states waging war. We are at a state in our development as a society where a small wrench in the works can cause huge damage. Small numbers of modestly equipped terrorists can cause disproportionate damage to us. I don't think anyone has figured out how to deal with this aspect of the problem.

Michael writes,

-"It is a fight against all terrorists and all states the support or encourage terrorism."

Which have been so loosely defined as to incorporate huge swaths of the planet. Why?

-"In many ways the war in Iraq has been an inspired move: it moved the venue outside the US, it greatly reduced the terrorists' ability to operate outside the mideast, and it has kept the terrorists preoccupied."

Would Europe agree?

-"The bottom line: no more attacks on the US."

This is an assumption - not that there have been no more attacks, but the cause and effect relationship as to why upon which the statement is predicated. Unfortunately, the lack of attacks neither proves nor disproves that the post-9/11 efforts against the terrorists are the cause. In other words, there could be some other reason for the lack of attacks that has nothing to do with US efforts. However, if I were the president, I would sure as hell tell anyone willing to listen that my actions were the cause, whether they were or not.

-"but the real opponent is radical Islam"

It may indeed by a serious threat, but my point about the onus of responsibility as a function of power is still legitimate. The military and economic might of the US is greater than that of radical Islam, despite the important issue raised below.

-"We are at a state in our development as a society where a small wrench in the works can cause huge damage."

Good point. Brian Fagan expands on this in "The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization."

Thanks for your comments, Michael.