Remembering 9/11

I'm sorry, that's insane.

First, while Iran's government is odious, the people of Iran, half of whom were born after the revolution, are often as dissatisfied with their government as anyone. Maybe you saw something about that this summer?

"few big bombs on Saudi Arabia and Syria."

What a thuggish response. Yes, let's drop "big bombs" on civilian populations, which is where these fanatics are, to get some results. Do you brush your teeth with a hammer? Not to mention cutting off our oil supply, starting a massive international conflict and further emboldening the fanatics. Every bomb we drop creates more killers than it kills. See the insurgency in Iraq, where only when the military began to engage the people filling it's ranks instead of "shock and awing" them did the violence ebb.

The proper tactical response to 9/11? Double your physical intelligence budget, increase foreign aid, create better intel and military partnerships with "friendly" nations, double the foreign aid budget, create a world task force to fight terror (this was proposed by the UK and Germany and France after 9/11, and we ignored it) using better intelligence sharing through the FBI/CIA/NSA/Interpol...

But instead we invaded the "graveyard of empires" and killed a great many Iraqis for nothing.

We've done the memory of the victims of 9/11 so very proud.

You make good points, most of which I agree with (see my responses below, too), but unfortunately, the current state of the world likely will require large numbers of civilians to die because of politics.

That said, don't read too much into the recently passed Iranian summer. Yes, my heart was moved by the demonstrations, which, in their own underground way, continue beyond the reach of most media. That said, the so-called reformers are still children of and general adherents to the 1978-79 revolution, during which a a de-facto state of war between the US and Iran begun (yes, I am fully aware of our long history in Iran dating back to at least the first oil grabs of the 1930s). I don't put too much stock in any successor to the current leadership, whether the presidents or the clerics.

It is fine and dandy to hope that the good will of good people eventually triumph, rendering the need for war moot. One can argue that's what happened in many parts of Europe between 1989-1991. Fair enough. But history shows that most people, citizen or subjects, are too apathetic or cowed to do much than exercise a dull conformity to the regime in question. 20th-century Germany, of course, provides an easy example, though modern China and modern Saudi Arabia will do just as well.

Don't mistake my reticence for war as pacifism. A favorite quote of CIA chief James Angleton was "We do not make the wars, but we do make them smaller"

We have embarked on nation-making in Afghanistan and Iraq, this is folly. Afghanistan is not a nation, it's an abstraction. It would be better settled as tribal states, not a cohesive whole. Iraq is more successful, but the cost has been a textbook definition of phyrric victory.

The UK has the model down cold. They treat terrorism as a police and intelligence problem. They infiltrate and thwart, they move cautiously and aren't interested some post-colonial empire. Maybe they learned that lesson?

Iran isn't going to sprout into some Persian paradise if the groundswell continues. It will still be a very conservative Islamic country. But I believe it will be one that does not pursue terrorism and perhaps, just perhaps, sees beyond the "Great Satan" mindset that infects the generation of the revolutionary guard. Again, quiet support, intelligence gathering, building up strong 3rd party allies, all better than calling a nation of millions "evil" and acting like the slowest cowboy on the range.

"Don't mistake my reticence for war as pacifism."

I don't, not at all.

"We have embarked on nation-making in Afghanistan and Iraq, this is folly. Afghanistan is not a nation, it's an abstraction. It would be better settled as tribal states, not a cohesive whole. Iraq is more successful, but the cost has been a textbook definition of phyrric victory."

Agree 100%. I am stumped on what to do in Afghanistan.

"The UK has the model down cold. They treat terrorism as a police and intelligence problem. They infiltrate and thwart, they move cautiously .."

Yes, but they no longer have an empire to maintain. For better or worse (and I'm on the side of better, by the way), we do. Doesn't mean we have to be stupid about it, though, and I agree in general with your view on this.

"But I believe it will be one that does not pursue terrorism and perhaps, just perhaps, sees beyond the "Great Satan" mindset that infects the generation of the revolutionary guard. Again, quiet support, intelligence gathering, building up strong 3rd party allies, all better than calling a nation of millions "evil" and acting like the slowest cowboy on the range."

I really, really hope this is right. But letting the clerics have the bomb (that assumes Israel will just let that happen) worries me. I am not afraid so much of them using it; even if they gave it to a terrorist group, we likely could trace it back because of the particular materials used in the bomb. Rather, I worry about how the politics of the region will change, including an arms race among Iran's neighbors (Egypt, Saudi Arabia), who generally don't like Iran. That, to me, is a nightmare situation.

*good, not gad

Very good points, Handlor and Aaron.

I guess I am just frustrated that 1) This country fought its main effort against the wrong enemy; and 2) The Iranian government (hate the government but this the larger society is wonderful) likely will get the bomb, which will lead either to a) Israeli response that will draw us in; or b)a wholesale change in the strategic realities of the Mid East and very likely Europe and other parts of Central Asia.

Either way, we will deal with Iran in some fashion in a way far deeper than we are now.

War should always be a last resort, if only because violence always brings many unintended consequences, some of which might serve to destroy the original reason for going to war. That said, war can often serve as an effective tool of policy and politics, like it or not. Too bad Bush, Cheney and all those idiots had too macho and not enough Bismarkian wisdom when it came to war.

as for Iran, we have an opportunity to appeal to the hearts and minds of the public for the first time in decades. We can get it right. I can only imagine how much more fucked we'd all be if we had targeted Iran, Syria, etc. Ahmedinijad(?) would be the least of our concerns. In that respect, we should be slightly relieved that Iraq was the shiny object Bush went after. Who didn't hate Saddam?

"In that respect, we should be slightly relieved that Iraq was the shiny object Bush went after."

Best line I've read all day.

"Could we perhaps move this to another thread, and keep this one for reverence? We lost over 30 people from my town, and we were considered lucky."

I am sorry for your loss, just as I am sorry for the whole country's loss. That said, I think honest analysis, sophisticated or otherwise, has more value in our society than simple reverence, which can, after all, be done in private.

Frankly, this is how I mark the event and the memory of the murdered: Thinking about the attack's affect on my country and my own life, and wondering what mistakes we made that we can learn from as the war[s] continue.

Thats ok Matilda, I understand that you can't comprehend whats its like to experience these things first hand. Either way, I thought I'd give it a try.

Why were you looking to Joe Biden for answers? He was just a senator from Delaware.

Well, slick. He was on the tele -- something to do with being head of the Foreign Relations Committee -- as i recall our elected leadership was unavailable, bunkered as it were. The media was talking to anybody with a tongue and he was the first senior official i recall seeing. nothing to do with his present position or as senator from Delaware.

yeah, we should all get a life. 9/11 is so 2001.

9/11 is, in fact, so 2001. Self-pity and self-indugent whining, however, are timeless.

there you go. Took you long enough.

"Let's not compare WWII to our current wars of choice and how our own stupidity/opression brought us into these conflicts.."

Not trying to anything like that at all. I was merely commenting upon the moral aspects of war upon the larger population, that's all. When you talk about "millions" of victims, the only war that applies to for our society really is WWII.

"Probably because most Americans are unaware of the dirty work, the fire bombing of Japan pre-Hiroshima/Nagasaki for instance. Ignorance is bliss. It was the good war, the enemy was real, as real and evil as some wish we had now. Don't cloud it with crimes against humanity, the lines get too blurry. War is hell full of shit. Always."

Indeed. And ignorance, combined with the narratives and propaganda, is what makes it possible for large populations, especially those in democratic societies, to support wars. Even then, it can be hard.

Quibbles: The details of Tokyo firebombings of early 1945 were actually available in some form to the population at large, at least according to newspaper articles from that period. As well, even with the "good war" narrative, politicians by early 1945 detected significant levels of public weariness with the war effort (the govt, for instance, was having a harder time selling bonds). People were simply tired.

Fun fact: Despite what right-wingers try to tell you, there was significant criticism of of the effort in WWII, judging from newspaper articles, letters to the editor and other sources. Criticism always happens in times of war.

re: Quibbles...
While that may be, i think the fire bombing of Tokyo was presented more as "shock n aw" buildings on fire, whole districts lit.. it was light on burning flesh and screaming babies. I am not old enough myself to recall accounts from 1945 but i know the details were not readily available in my studies decades later. People were tired, yes, but not because they were subjected to the horrors of civilian collateral damage. People naturally grow weary of war. Look at us.. Iraq was fun for a while, now its a drag.

Absolutely, and most likely without as much fuss and whining as you would hear today. That said, we as a country have little to no sense of what it means to be a civilian in war. In the midst of war. Some sacrifice their sons, daughters, their spouses, their siblings, but not here at home, always somewhere else. Thats the significance of 9/11 made all the more tragic by this countries wholesale destruction of thousands of Iraqis in response. Iraqis. Tragedy upon tragedy.

eh, fuck that... enough self indulgent whining, lets kick some ass!!

What other meaning could there be to nuking an entire country?