Remembering 9-11, 15 years later

[Disgustipated]

I slept through it all. Advantages of being a West Coaster.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

So what do you say guys that 15 years later US is supporting Al-qaeda in civil war against official government in Syria and Taliban position is pretty strong in Afghanistan?

 

[EgonSpengler]

So what do you say guys that 15 years later US is supporting Al-qaeda in civil war against official government in Syria and Taliban position is pretty strong in Afghanistan?

Broadly speaking, I'd say that the politics of these regions are much more complicated than we understand, and that we frequently go charging into proverbial minefields. Just as examples, a journalist for one of the New York papers - I forget her name - said on a radio program last year that she's been covering the Middle East since the 1970s and the Syrian civil war is the most complicated event she's seen, and Dexter Filkins said a few years ago that he didn't think there was a single person in the US government who had a clear understanding of Iran's government. (I know you didn't ask about Iran, I'm just using that as an example of the deficits in US foreign policy, which has so often relied on "SIGINT" and hard power.)

 

[SpacemanSpiff]

I have yet to see where any violence in my lifetime, that has made the world a better place.

I have 2 examples (though I grant the first was not in our lifetimes): WWII and, though on a much smaller scale, Kuwait.

Even wars were abhorrent, so many civilians killed by both sides, how have their families become better of by losing these innocent family members. It only breeds more hatred.

To be clear, I totally agree with this. I'm mostly a pacifist for exactly those reasons you cited, but I'm also not an extremist. I believe it should be rare but that it is also necessary when some other aggressor goes too far. Ghandi & MLK did much good with peace, but what difference would a "sit-in" make to ISIS? Just easy pickins, to them. They wouldn't even need to use a suicide vest. Peace can topple governments, but not depraved men with bombs and guns.

To reduce all this to parenting: I try never to strike my kids. It sends the wrong message, affects them both physically and psychologically, and doesn't produce any desired results (e.g., "Stop crying!" *smack* *smack* "Stop crying!!!"). But what happens if my kid strikes me violently because I took his toy (as consequences for some other transgression)? What would my "turning the other cheek" in that instance teach to my children? And what kind of world would we live in years from now if every parent allowed that without an appropriate response? I'd forecast a lot more Hitlers and Saddams.


Back to wars of the world, the following should be obvious, but just to have it said: I think especially the Jews who survived the camps, and their progeny today, and a great many others (including me), consider our world a better place now because of the violence of WWII, compared to what it could have been if Hitler was allowed to continue unchallenged and had the U.S. had not participated with the Allies.

Was it violence? Yes. Was it desired? No. Was there massive loss of innocent life? Yes, but mostly Hitler's doing. Was it a "good thing?" Well, not to have it happen, but yes overall only in the context that *not* countering the Nazi and Japanese violence with violence would have been a worse thing.

And WWII is a case where it didn't really breed more hatred in any significant way. From that, Japan became our friends (though not immediately), Germany had some rough patches but is now very peaceful and prosperous and didn't start any wars since. The only people that may hate us (Allies) from WWII are Nazis (who were already full of hate anyway) and, because of the violence of the Allies, Nazis are banned from Germany and are an insignificant group everywhere else.

But Kuwait was in my lifetime, though the scope was quite a bit smaller and much less atrocious ... and all that is probably because of the quick response. At the time, the U.S. (and others') actions was all about preventing another Hitler. The world had learned that when a world leader clearly takes over a neighboring country, letting that happen unchallenged is *not* the correct response. The sooner that gets "nipped in the bud," the less needless loss of life occurs.

At the time, doing any more than protecting Kuwait, i.e., pushing into a sovereign nation like Iraq and toppling their leader (even if he was being a jerk), was considered going too far on our part, making us the aggressors who'd be causing needless loss of life, so we didn't do it (... then). The general feeling was, it's OK if Saddam is contained and at least somewhat prevented via flyovers from torturing/attacking/oppressing his own countrymen (even if Saddam didn't consider them "his own people"). But the world certainly won't allow any more overt Hitler-like takeovers.

So, for the U.S. to be attacked on 9-11 with no response would have been an invitation for others to attempt similar. If son #1 smacks me and I do nothing, then son #2 will try it, too. It would have been like France letting Hitler in basically unchallenged. "Fortunately," 9-11 could all be traced to a man (bin Laden) who was being harbored by a government (Taliban), so we had something for our military to attack.

But beyond that, I agree 100%. It is easy to make a case, in retrospect, that Korea & Vietnam were probably needless wars with lots of needless loss (though the present S. Koreans are probably thankful the U.S. helped stop the N. Koreans at 38N, looking at their situations today).

And it's nakedly clear that the post-9-11 Iraq war was only to quell the issues of both Saddam as a general troublemaker and the apparently empty feeling inside some that Bush Sr. should have toppled Saddam the first time and prevented the subsequent air-policing. I also stand against Obama's drone strikes that have reportedly taken out many innocents as collateral damage while going after terrorist leaders.

But with all that said, ISIS is presently a problem that probably should have been dealt with more forcefully sooner.

 

[SpacemanSpiff]

I slept through it all. Advantages of being a West Coaster.

(love the handle, BTW)

I totally get it. I have a close friend who was in Hawaii on business at the time who also just woke up to the complete story, asking "what the hell" happened. To this day, 9-11 does not live for her the way it does for those of us who experienced the unfolding.

Not to trivialize anything, just a vaguely similar but familiar feeling: the difference between watching every minute of "the ____ game" unfold vs. just hearing the score later. (The original link from my OP here was our version of "play-by-play calls" at the time.)

In my specific case, minutes after I realized we were being attacked 3hrs (driving) to the NE of me, I was informed there was another attack 1hr to the SW of me. Now, while there was absolutely no reason for anyone to target the little (flat layout) office building where I was, it still struck some fear. I had to talk myself out of it.

Then one hit a field 3hrs NW of me and not all the planes were grounded yet, so anything was possible (not knowing at the time that the counter-attackers of United 93 purposefully waited for a rural area below them).

It made you keep an ear open for planes for the next few hours, or look up immediately if you stepped outside at all. It made you seriously consider the blast radius from Washington DC to Baltimore if these attackers somehow got their hands on a nuke. It was definitely a particular feeling I can access anytime I think about it now. (And still basically nothing compared to those who were directly impacted, of course.)

 

[tetley]

So what do you say guys that 15 years later US is supporting Al-qaeda in civil war against official government in Syria and Taliban position is pretty strong in Afghanistan?

Because we have ISIS now, and ISIS is worse!!!!

(I get my sources from TV)

 

[SpacemanSpiff]

(I get my sources from TV)

Love this!

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Because we have ISIS now, and ISIS is worse!!!!

(I get my sources from TV)

There wouldnt be any ISIS if Saddam was in place. Not sure if I should or at that fact but I doubt your sources do cover that well enough....

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

But Kuwait was in my lifetime, though the scope was quite a bit smaller and much less atrocious ... and all that is probably because of the quick response. At the time, the U.S. (and others') actions was all about preventing another Hitler.

Kuwait? The place has next to no state history. Its an artificial state and its wealth should be shared among larger population.

Ask people who is the biggest threat to world peace. Its the US. That is were Hitlers spirit lives at the moment.


Link to video.

The world had learned that when a world leader clearly takes over a neighboring country, letting that happen unchallenged is *not* the correct response. The sooner that gets "nipped in the bud," the less needless loss of life occurs.

I dont think USA would be so large if it didnt took territory from its neighbours. Florida, California, Texas, New Mexico, Puerto Rico, Hawaii,etc. US is even participating in destroying and dismantling countries at present. "The world had learned" ... - nice joke!