The Boy Who Cried "9/11"
So, there's been a great deal of bleating about 9/11 from the right lately. In particular, Karl Rove's recent bit of rhetoric springs to mind:
"Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," [Karl] Rove said. "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."...
While I'm sure some liberals did suggest therapy, even I'M not THAT liberal. You murder 3000 of my fellow citizens, you don't get therapy. You get prison, at the very least. I do, however, support criminal prosecution over military action, as I feel terror cells are structured more like a criminal organization rather than a nation-state. As such, it is through criminal investigation and prosecution that they will be beaten, not a massive show of military strength. Given that the only real quantifiable successes in the War on Terror have been through the actions of various police agencies around the world (including the FBI), the facts would seem to bear this out.
And yes, conservatives, specifically the administration, DID prepare for war... with Iraq. Oh, certainly there was a bit of flash and dazzle in Afghanistan. Going directly into Iraq would have been tough to sell even in the fear-soaked days following 9/11. But Iraq was always the main target. If Richard Clarke is to be believed, both Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush were looking for the Iraq connection immediately after the attacks. And by focusing on Iraq to the detriment of the situation in Afghanistan, those who truly DID attack us were allowed to escape. Which brings me to the next part of the Rove quote:
"Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said we must understand our enemies."
But they have not defeated our enemies. Because they did not understand them, they allowed them to escape and regroup elsewhere. By focusing on their personal vendetta with Iraq, they provided our enemies with a rallying point and proving ground for new recruits. By not understanding our enemies, they made them and their cause that much stronger. The fact that global terror attacks have risen so sharply in the time since the Iraq invasion that the State Department no longer even reports on them lends some legitimacy to this notion.
To build upon what Moxie said in her post... By understanding our enemies, we understand their weaknesses. By understanding those weaknesses, we understand how to exploit them and, ultimately, this leads to their defeat. But to go even further, we need also to understand those whom our enemies exploit, and attempt to turn them against our enemies. Because without a willing source of jihadists and martyrs, terror cannot thrive.
I advocate this approach. If for no other reason, than because the "blow a bunch of stuff up and hope all the bad guys are dead when the smoke clears" approach has not been very effective so far.
But let's talk a little more about 9/11. As Moxie said, we live in New Jersey. We could see the burning towers with the naked eye from numerous points within walking distance from our house. 9/11 scared the hell out of me, and it got me all manner of angry. I want justice for the victims, and closure for their families. What I do not want, is for the victims of 9/11 to become the poster children for every partisan agenda (right and left) currently up for debate. For example, the suggestion that the victims of 9/11, en mass, would be in favor of a constitutional amendment banning flag burning. That is beyond ridiculous. It is idiotic.
The 9/11 victims were all people. Just people. They weren't saints or icons or symbols of American ideals, they were just people. For every loving father, devoted wife, flag-waving patriot and hard worker in those towers, there were just as many slackers, abusive spouses/parents and flag-burning rebels. You know how I know? Because they were people. And in any group of people you have sweethearts and you have assholes, saints and sinners and all points in between. To suggest that these people would all speak with one voice from beyond the grave is as foolish as suggesting they all spoke with one voice while they lived. They didn't, they don't, and to suggest otherwise is absurd at best and offensive at worst.
To seek justice for their murders is an admirable goal, and one that both parties should have no trouble getting behind. But to drape oneself in their corpses to lend credence to a partisan agenda is an affront to their memories, and a slap in the face to those they left behind. I call on leaders of both parties to stop this sort of rhetoric, and pledge not to do it again.
We owe these PEOPLE no less.
"Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," [Karl] Rove said. "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."...
While I'm sure some liberals did suggest therapy, even I'M not THAT liberal. You murder 3000 of my fellow citizens, you don't get therapy. You get prison, at the very least. I do, however, support criminal prosecution over military action, as I feel terror cells are structured more like a criminal organization rather than a nation-state. As such, it is through criminal investigation and prosecution that they will be beaten, not a massive show of military strength. Given that the only real quantifiable successes in the War on Terror have been through the actions of various police agencies around the world (including the FBI), the facts would seem to bear this out.
And yes, conservatives, specifically the administration, DID prepare for war... with Iraq. Oh, certainly there was a bit of flash and dazzle in Afghanistan. Going directly into Iraq would have been tough to sell even in the fear-soaked days following 9/11. But Iraq was always the main target. If Richard Clarke is to be believed, both Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush were looking for the Iraq connection immediately after the attacks. And by focusing on Iraq to the detriment of the situation in Afghanistan, those who truly DID attack us were allowed to escape. Which brings me to the next part of the Rove quote:
"Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said we must understand our enemies."
But they have not defeated our enemies. Because they did not understand them, they allowed them to escape and regroup elsewhere. By focusing on their personal vendetta with Iraq, they provided our enemies with a rallying point and proving ground for new recruits. By not understanding our enemies, they made them and their cause that much stronger. The fact that global terror attacks have risen so sharply in the time since the Iraq invasion that the State Department no longer even reports on them lends some legitimacy to this notion.
To build upon what Moxie said in her post... By understanding our enemies, we understand their weaknesses. By understanding those weaknesses, we understand how to exploit them and, ultimately, this leads to their defeat. But to go even further, we need also to understand those whom our enemies exploit, and attempt to turn them against our enemies. Because without a willing source of jihadists and martyrs, terror cannot thrive.
I advocate this approach. If for no other reason, than because the "blow a bunch of stuff up and hope all the bad guys are dead when the smoke clears" approach has not been very effective so far.
But let's talk a little more about 9/11. As Moxie said, we live in New Jersey. We could see the burning towers with the naked eye from numerous points within walking distance from our house. 9/11 scared the hell out of me, and it got me all manner of angry. I want justice for the victims, and closure for their families. What I do not want, is for the victims of 9/11 to become the poster children for every partisan agenda (right and left) currently up for debate. For example, the suggestion that the victims of 9/11, en mass, would be in favor of a constitutional amendment banning flag burning. That is beyond ridiculous. It is idiotic.
The 9/11 victims were all people. Just people. They weren't saints or icons or symbols of American ideals, they were just people. For every loving father, devoted wife, flag-waving patriot and hard worker in those towers, there were just as many slackers, abusive spouses/parents and flag-burning rebels. You know how I know? Because they were people. And in any group of people you have sweethearts and you have assholes, saints and sinners and all points in between. To suggest that these people would all speak with one voice from beyond the grave is as foolish as suggesting they all spoke with one voice while they lived. They didn't, they don't, and to suggest otherwise is absurd at best and offensive at worst.
To seek justice for their murders is an admirable goal, and one that both parties should have no trouble getting behind. But to drape oneself in their corpses to lend credence to a partisan agenda is an affront to their memories, and a slap in the face to those they left behind. I call on leaders of both parties to stop this sort of rhetoric, and pledge not to do it again.
We owe these PEOPLE no less.
by Kid Bastard at 1:17 PM
20 Comments:
In order to defeat your enemies, you must understand your enemies.
It's Football 101. It's Ovitz 101. It's "The ART OF WAR 101" (which everyone should you ever want to date in Los Angeles)
What we are doing, isn't working.
Bin Ladin still alive.
Al Qaeda prospers.
When was the last time anyone heard the word "Afghanistan" in the news.
Kid, hate to clog up the comments with this long post but it can't be linked to and I can't put it any better than this:
"Adopting this policy, and processing the detainees as ordinary criminal defendants, would doubtless gain ground for the U.S. in the propaganda war. At the same time, however, we would start losing the shooting war — as we did in the 1990s, when U.S. targets, at home and abroad, were repeatedly and successfully attacked by al-Qaeda and its allies. Consider that, under the criminal-law model, the U.S. response to 9/11 would have gone, more or less, as follows: The FBI would have initiated an investigation and started to collect evidence. After gathering sufficient material to support indicting one or more individuals — such investigations can take years — federal prosecutors would have gone to a grand jury. Once indictments were secured, international arrest warrants would have been obtained, presumably for bin Laden and his chief lieutenants. Extradition requests may then have been presented to the Taliban — probably over the State Department’s strong objections, since the U.S., quite properly, never recognized that group as Afghanistan’s legitimate government. In any case, such requests would not have been honored. Bin Laden and his compatriots would have stood trial only if they had been foolish enough to travel to a country willing to surrender them to the U.S. All the while, al-Qaeda would have been entirely free to plan and execute further attacks against Americans.
This, then, is the key problem with using criminal law as the principal weapon against terror: The criminal justice system is fundamentally reactive. It can punish individual perpetrators, but it can prevent future crimes only through deterrence. Deterrence, of course, works well enough on the domestic level, in a society where most individuals are law-abiding to begin with, and others fear the consequences of a criminal conviction. It does not work at all where the bad actors, or at least a substantial number of them, are already willing to die in order to kill. "
Your Response?
I agree with you. We must target the cells.
We MUST allow profiling to seek out these cells. In the 60’s no one cried foul when Italians and The Knights of Columbus halls were given the hairy eyeball in order to curb organized crime.
Only trouble is, our Nation is to hung up with in house fighting.
At our expense.
Our Leaders are out of touch on both sides.
The flag burning issue is a smoke screen, they are screwups and simply can’t make good leadership decisions for fear of getting booted off of the DC gravy train express.
Meanwhile, today the State’s were granted rights to take your home.
China is trying to buy our Big Business. They are One Billion Strong.
100 Years from now we may be speaking Chinese.
Will they wise up to how we feel?
If they see the Gravy Train leaving without them, Democrats and Republicans alike will be holding hands and singing on the Capital lawn again.
We need BIG time changes in Washington
Brash, al Qaeda IS free to plan and execute further attacks against Americans.
And any police effort to apprehend and prosecute terrorists (bin Laden specifically in this example) would not only involve the FBI and US agencies, but international police agencies as well. However, I will concede to your position the idea that there could be a military component to this, in that small special forces teams could be utilized in the apprehension and arrest phase of the operation. But I still insist that massive displays of military force against a country not proven to have any ties to the group or individuals involved (pre-invasion) are counter-productive.
But let's say you're right, and that military invasion is the way to go. Why haven't we invaded Saudi Arabia? Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. bin Laden is a Saudi. Saudi oil money funds madrassa schools all over the Middle East. If we are to truly bring down the full might of our military upon those who would harbor and support terrorists, wouldn't Saudi Arabia seem the likelier target than Iraq?
Not to poot at the church ice cream social, but I have a loaded question (and Moxie, as this your house, feel free to tell me to poot elsewhere) for the two badminton squads:
Would you agree that, aside from the war (a doozy of a thing to ignore) and largely non-ideological procedural issues, do we not have a fairly broad consensus in DC right now on fundemental philosophical issues?
And would you, bare with me, consider that national politics is largely an expression of a group identity? And could the current rancor between parties is inversely proportionate to the shrinking differences between the parties?
Just a few ideers, nothing major. Curious as to thoughts. The face of the claim that the 50% that didn't vote with me are stupid/unpatriotic/fascist/terrorist lover is on the face of it stupid and I'm pretty sure you all don't feel that way, but the rhetorical excess is a little much. Mind you, I'm just a lurker trying to make sense in a crazy world.
In this kind of discourse we deal in very partial truths, which is a flawed way of getting close to any close to a truth we can all agree on.
I am so high right now.
I do, however, support criminal prosecution over military action, as I feel terror cells are structured more like a criminal organization rather than a nation-state.
So, Mr. Bastard, you basically agree with Mr. Rove, you just resent the politicization of 9/11. I totally understand, but your about 3 1/2 years too late with your outrage. I'm afraid the national unity wore out sometime over the Christmas/New Years break of 2001-2002. It is dissapointing, but so long as one has a democracy with opposing ideas about how to deal with terrorism, it's inevitable.
Have fun at the zoo, an ironic place to go to escape politics.
I think maybe two things are being combined here, Iraq and Afghanistand. Which are two totally separate wars. One was fought because of 9/11 which was unanimously backed by congress. The second is being faught because of supposed WMD's, lets not forget that. Hey when was the last time you heard Cheney say they have credibal evidence that Iraq was linked to 9/11??? I haven't seen anything yet or heard anything lately.
Iraq only became part of the war on terror after the WMD's evaporated.
I asked this question before, have yet to get an answer.
Hop into the Wayback machine to 2003. W presents the argument that we need to go to war to free the Iraqi people. Do you still support it? This is what the current mission is.
The initial argument for war was WMD's and then the terrorists and then the freedom of the IRaqi people.
Do you think for one minute that Bush gives a crap about even one Iraqi civilian?
Nice post KB. I think you meant Shock and Awe rather than Flash and Dazzle, no?
Incidentially,I do think it is important to point out that the WTC victims were of all nationalities, not just 'mericans, or New Yorkers. I can't recall the source, but most certainly, people from all points of the globe were killed on that day. So, your point that the amalgamated whole most certainly would not speak with one voice as the W, Rove and Co would have us believe is a good one.
Blog on and enjoy the zoo. Personally I hate those places, but it's a lot cheeper than a safari in Kenya.
Kid,
Even assuming we would be able to effectively apprehend and prosecute the perpetrators of 9/11 (which I am highly skeptical), you still haven't addressed the concern that criminal enforement is primarily reactive, and has no ability to deter future crimes in this case.
I'd argue that war does posess that quality, as it destroys the enemies ability to wage future attacks. While the war may be long and drawn out, we haven't had a single terrorist attack in three years. That tells me it's working.
Gee Brash great observation! Before 9/11 when did the US experience a terrorist attack on US soil by a foreign terrorist?
Was it the First WTC bombing in what '93?
Was it the Oklahoma City Bombing in '95?
I would tend to think the first one so that was a whole 8 years we went without incident. Hmmm 8 years is very similar to 8 years of Clinton. Maybe he was doing something right to and Bush just fucked it up.
Hey kids! Great day at the zoo - kid loved it, got tons of pictures... Maybe I will put a few of the best ones up.
Brash, I'd hate to point this out, but what about the Anthrax problem? That was AFTER 9/11 and on US soil. Or are you going to say that doesn't count?
Kid and Mox,
First Kid, you never answered my original question: "How does criminal action deter in this case?"
Second, 8 Years? While I wouldn't count OK City, I would count the attack on the USS Cole, ie US troops, and the attack on US embassies in Africa, ie US soil. Those were 1998 and 2000 respectably, ie The Clinton Years
Third, Mox, I don't count Anthrax because we never figuired out who did that. Seeing as how Islamic terrorists usually aren't shy about their acts, I'm guessing domestic terrorism, maybe the ELF?
But Brash, wasn't a "war on terror" declared? Does that only include Islamic fundamentalist terror? Because I think it includes all forms of terror. Pardon me if I am incorrect.
Brash, I most humbly admit that I don't know how criminal prosecution would deter future attacks.
But I would argue that this particular war has not acted as a deterrent, rather it has encouraged terrorists the world over. Iraq is not making them weaker, it is making them stronger. Every new jihadist who rallies to the insurgency and survives the experience is one more trained and tested terrorist (forgive the alliteration)who can strike anywhere else in the world.
And while we're discussing unanswered questions, I'm still waiting on mine regarding Saudi Arabia.
Crackpotpress, no. Bringing freedom to an oppressed people is a noble goal, but not one we have a great track record of acheiving at the end of a gun.
And a very sheepish apology for slighting the people from other countries who worked in the WTC.
Mox,
"War on Terror" was a bullshit PC phrase. It's a war on Islamic Extremists, and no one on the right will challenge that who isn't worried about offending some voting bloc.
Kid,
That seems like a rather serious problem. You have a plan for stopping terrorism that you admit won't prevent it.
As far as mine, it just came across the wires that Iran just elected an ultra-orthadox Islamicist. I don't think there's any shortage of extremists, the war in Iraq didn't spontaneously create them, it just engaged them.
Saudi Arabia? Lot's of reasons, but perhaps the best are the reasons you cited for going to war. If we did overthrow the Saudi Family, guess who takes over? Not the mostly secular majority that exists in Iraq. It would be Bin Laden and the 9/11 pilots; in short, the resistance is worse than the rulers.
First, it would seem we both have plans for stopping terrorism that don't prevent terrorism. And the war in Iraq did not "spontaneously" create these extremists, but it does act as a powerful recruitment tool for the deluded cannon fodder they use in their operations. You make this very point in your answer to the Saudi question.
"in short, the resistance is worse than the rulers"
Isn't this what's going on in Iraq? If invading Saudi Arabia would be bad due to who would take over once the regime fell, then why was Iraq such a great idea? Many people who had the ear of the president and the Pentagon foresaw the trouble we have there now and were ignored. You strike me as intelligent, well-informed and somewhat worldly. Surely you must have had some idea this was going to happen. So if it's a deterrent for invading Saudi Arabia, why wasn't it a deterrent in the Iraq invasion?
And just because I don't know how criminal prosecution would DETER future acts of terrorism, I still think it could prevent many of them, by uncovering plots in the planning stages, thinning the ranks of the upper echelons through arrests and dismantling the financial support systems for the various cells. All that is accomplished with the invasion of a nation-state is killing a bunch of the aforementioned cannon fodder and then creating more of them through the tragedy of civilian casualties or "collateral damage".
Kid,
I would argue that it does prevent future terrorism, first by engaging these people somewhere other than US soil, and second by eventually killing enough to break the will of the movement.
I don't see how I'm making a point about recruitment in Saudi Arabia. My point was that they are already ready and willing canon fodder. The Saudi Family is keeping them repressed, but it's not as if they don't exist.
As far as Iraq, you must know that the situation is different. For example, compare the plans of the new president of Iran (and Bin Laden should he ever come to power) and the new Iraqi government. One want to return to Islamic law, the other is trying to accomplish the incredibly difficult task of creating a secular, representitive government. I don't have to tell you which is which. Of course there are extremists in Iraq (Baathists, Sunnis, etc.) but hell, there are extremists in America. The point is that the ruling majority of Iraq are good guys, not so for Saudi Arabia or Iran.
"I still think it could prevent many of them, by uncovering plots in the planning stages, thinning the ranks of the upper echelons through arrests and dismantling the financial support systems for the various cells."
I agree with you, but also point out that we are doing this sort of thing. Furthermore we were doing it prior to 9/11. It can prevent some terrorism, but obviously not all, or even the most egregious. I'm not willing to settle for that.
Sorry about the late reply, was away from the computer for most of the weekend.
Brash, I think we may be reaching the point of agreeing to disagree. I can see some of your points, and from what I'm reading, you can see some of mine. I could make a few more arguments, but I'm sure you'll counter with others, and we'll be going around forever.
So, I posit that the real solution to the problem of global terrorism likely lies somewhere between our two arguments.
Post a Comment
<< Home