9/11: Ten Years After

Wow.  What a conspicuous day to start submitting blogs.

I've made my decision.  I've decided I'm not going to opine at length or in detail on 9/11, its 10th anniversary.  or any of the events that resulted from, or are rooted in, the tragedy ten years ago.  (After reading this, you may ask yourself, "This is what he calls not opining at length?"  My response: yes, for a topic this enormous I've barely scratched the surface!)  I will ask questions; I think we should all be asking questions.

Why?  Good question!  We're off to a good start!  The 9/11 10th anniversary would seem to be exactly the kind of topic to be given serious and detailed attention in this forum.

But it isn't.  Not even close.

It's too big.  The forces behind it are perhaps still the greatest threats to our way of life.

It's too current, and it always will be.

It's too controversial -- on all sides.  Believe it or not, in some parts of the world the 19 men -- call them men, demons, devils, killers, murderers, deranged, deluded or misguided souls, hate mongers, war criminals, martyrs, zealots, soldiers, patriots, or whatever else you want to call them, and please do feel free to use profanity here -- who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks are heroes.  Thank God -- the very same God that some believe authorized and condoned these attacks -- that the majority of humanity deems the emergency responders -- those that survived and those that did not -- the citizens aboard American Airlines Flight 93 and all the other innocent victims of the attacks the true heroes.  It's worth noting here that to those most sympathetic to the terrorists' cause, we don't worship the same god.  In their view, 'they' worship God, 'we' (the Judeo-Christian West) worship Satan.  If there is anything more frightening and dangerous than a Fundamentalist religion, it's a revisionist-history religion -- once that line is crossed they can, and apparently will, justify anything!

It touches too many raw nerves -- nerves that may never heal.  There are widows, widowers, orphans, parents, siblings and friends that will never be the same.  There are zealots still that wish the worst forms of harm to come to all the infidel Westerners of the world, even if the cost is the destruction of the planet*; their cause is unfulfilled.  There are too many open, ongoing questions and, really, nothing has been resolved.

* This is in direct conflict with the tenets of Islam which is actually the most ecologically harmonious of Western religions.

Was the act reprehensible?  Absolutely!  It compares fiendishly with the genocide and "ethnic cleansing" of the past century, in Europe (including the systematic and cruel extermination of Jews, Roma and Catholics during WWII), Africa (disturbingly ongoing and uncurbed) and Armenia, and the deployment of nuclear weapons upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  (Yes, it can be argued that the bombing of Japan's cities ultimately saved lives by ending the the Pacific Theater of WWII sooner, but this kind of argument requires guesswork as to when the war would have ended without the atrocities.  The real truth here is that American (Allied) lives were saved, and that is all that a nation needs to know in order to act in its own best, self-interest.  Overall, we don't know that lives were saved, we just reassure ourselves that they were in order to sleep better at night in a very scary and complicated world.)  At times, thinking about any of these events brings me to tears, as well as to the brink of rage and breakdown.  How are we as a species capable of such evil, and how do people commit such acts so cavalierly, even righteously!?

Was the reaction to 9/11 any better than the action?  I'm not sure.  I daresay most who think about it rather than merely feel about it aren't sure.  Were there any other reasonable courses of action?  Maybe.  It might be more accurate to say "probably."  Would we be better off had we followed another path?  Maybe, but we'll never know.  We don't get to explore that branch of history or probability.

I'm fairly certain that at least one reader will take a dive off the deep end, and read between lines that simply aren't there and will take my words as a sign that I do not support our troops.  To them I say, "Poppycock!"  I support our troops.  They are people that put their lives on the line in hope of promoting and protecting their, and our, ideals!  I support the cause.  I even support the main intentions behind their deployment.  But ten years later it is clearer than ever that the issues were too complex, too multinational, too multicultural and too socio-economical to rationally think that a military solution existed.  To those that point at the state of the world today and say the troops failed, I say, "How?"  There was nothing for them to fail at!  They succeeded at doing all the things that soldiers are reasonably capable of doing and should never have been asked to do things that they weren't suited to do.  (If you force your gardener to remove your cancerous tumour and you die on the table it's not your gardener's fault!)  You say they failed, I say they tried to exceed themselves and in some small ways, did.

Well, if not the troops, then who the heck else?  Another good question!

The decision to militarize the fight against terror was an executive decision of the US Government.  If it was made in concert with any other world powers, no record has been made public to show it.  Everyone recalls who the primary players were, so there's no need to rehash that here -- doing so just glorifies them by giving them a place in history.  Most of the world, including many Americans, believe that the US-Gov. manufactured evidence to give itself the 'moral imperative' to take the 'war on terror' on the road.  This in spite of the fact that it was done with plausible deniability in ind from the start.  Is there hard and fast proof that they did so?  Is a smoking gun proof?  (Actually no, it isn't, since, in and of itself, it doesn't indicate who fired it -- that takes fingerprints and/or gunpowder trace to establish  -- and a ballistics match is required to connect the firing of the gun to the victim.)  I think that since November 1963, it is naïve to think that a complex juggernaut like the US-Gov. could ever leave behind any evidence of wrongdoing unless it wanted that evidence to be found.

The most likely reasoning behind the military solution was twofold:

1. It is more politically acceptable for American soldiers to die than American civilians. (If you want to make this sound altruistic you can say that the people (i.e. soldiers) that were entrusted (i.e. paid) to defend America (i.e. civilians) were given the reign to do so.)
   
2. It is infinitely more politically acceptable for billions or even trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure damage to be inflicted on foreign soil than domestically -- foreigners don't vote in American elections or pay American taxes and foreign reconstruction is generally far cheaper than domestic construction mainly but not exclusively due to labour costs.

Somewhere after these two considerations was the intent to root out terrorists where they live.  It's a good thing that this wasn't really the goal because, by and large, they did a rotten job of it.  This could have been accomplished with covert operatives at a fraction of the cost and most likely with greater probability of success.  Perhaps, I'm wrong.  Maybe there was a third purpose behind the militarization of the hunt for Osama et al.

    3?  To appear to be doing something in order to placate a very agitated, afraid & angry American people?

If you want to, you can believe that the war on terror was a front for the acquisition of oil interests in the Middle East and the export of American-style democracy.  There is certainly enough (circumstantial) evidence to support that opinion.  If it is true, then the parallel with the actions of the terrorists (co-opting Islam to further a tribal agenda of rectifying economic inequality) is ironic.  My belief is that these were just convenient bonuses.

Are we better off now than we thought we were on September 10th, 2001?  How?  Are we better off now than on September 12, 2001?  Probably not.

There was a lot of death and there continues to be lots of death.  It was polarizing then and it continues to be polarizing now.  Are there more Muslim extremists/terrorists today than there were on September 11, 2001? Almost certainly, and their numbers likely swell daily.  (Please note that I'm intentionally using the word "swell" and not the word "grow."  Growth is a natural and healthy process integral to life itself.  Swelling is associated with anger and pain, and is a sign of disharmony, infection or trauma, processes that are inimical to life and congruent with corruption, morbidity and death.  It's pretty clear to me which word is the appropriate choice.)

The big questions that bother me most are these two doozies.

1. Has anyone claimed responsibility for allowing such acts to occur?  This is not the same as 'has anyone claimed responsibility for committing said acts.'  Obviously, Al Qaeda has in claiming The Cowardly 19 as their own.  By "allowing", I mean having had the power to prevent from happening.  A couple (others certainly exist) of possible targets for blame, and in very different ways and degrees, are: the US Government, that had received credible intelligence indicating impending attack and even attack targets, and attack windows...but didn't respond; and the institution or community that is Islam, which seems unperturbed by the heinous acts of their fellows, except when these acts harm innocent Muslims in Muslim countries.  I don't think anyone should be surprised.  Humans are nothing if not self-interested.  Where do you think NIMBY comes from?
   
2. Has anyone claimed responsibility for preventing this from happening again?  Certainly the Western world has ratcheted up security in virtually every way.  Is that a good solution?  Will it prevent additional tragedy or will it only forestall it?  What about Islam?  Have moderate Muslims taken it upon themselves to discourage and 'deromanticize' the extremist, terrorist culture?  Seemingly not.

Please, allow me to design a metaphor.

• Problem: It rains frequently in your area and you want to be able to play tennis even when the weather does not cooperate.
• Solution A: You can design, manufacture and distribute special water-repellent balls, nets and racquets, and engineer a new playing surface that quickly absorbs and leeches away moisture...at a prohibitive cost (R&D is expensive).
• Solution B: You can put a roof on the stadium/court.

In other words, you can scramble to fight the symptoms or you can prevent the problem at the root.  This is an example of "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."  Is Solution A worth doing?  I guess if Solution B was impossible, but then, Solution A doesn't even address hail, lightning or excessive cold & heat. In this case a better question might be, "How do you make Solution B possible?"

That is the question that keeps me awake at night.  How do you impress upon a community to police its own?  When that community has a religious/cultural belief that it is wrong to criticize let alone censure other members of the community is there any hope for improvement?  (This is actually an incorrect interpretation of Islam.  In Islam, it is only 'wrong' for non-Muslims (A.K.A. ignorant societies) to criticize Muslims.  Since they are ignorant, their motives can only be negative, thus Muslims should pay no attention to the non-Muslims' complaints -- they simply aren't looking out for Muslims' best interests.  On the other hand, Muslims are expected to criticize Muslims: since they are Muslims, it is assumed that their motivations are pure, specifically to help the criticized become closer to Allah.  Criticism is done in a respectful, giving and educational manner, never in anger or frustration.  In practice, however, this seldom occurs.  At best, it is seen as 'selling out.'  At worst, it can be considered tantamount to heresy.  So, Muslims are reluctant to criticize one another,  especially if the criticized is of higher station in the (religious) community.  Needless to say, Islam has no compunctions about criticizing the ignorant societies.  (I have issues with any society that can't seem to follow the Golden Rule or see 'what's good for the gander...'  In practice, given the choice of solidarity or choosing right from wrong, solidarity is almost always chosen.  Why rock the boat?  The youngest generations do seem willing to be more internally critical, so the future does bring hope for change...if humanity can last that long.)  If you aren't part of that community, what, if anything, can you do to help?  Clearly, according to popular/religious custom, we of the ignorant societies can do nothing.  Any efforts to help will be seen as meddling, or attempts to corrupt, and will have negative repercussions.  Oh, no one doubts that there are millions of -- maybe more than a billion -- Muslims that are pulling their hair out asking the same questions, but what are they doing?  Sadly, even if the entire 'lay' population of Islam were united in their desire to criticize, to end extremism, or at the very least, to end terrorism, they basically have no say in the matter.   The people in charge -- the Imams, the Mullahs, the Ayatollahs (etc.), the tribal chieftains, and many of the governments and wealthiest citizens -- are intent on promoting further terrorism, intent on spreading more hate, handing out more fatwas, (and seeking glory and profit opportunities) and not in quelling violence or seeking peaceful solutions to disputes.  Apparently, anything is permitted if it rights a perceived wrong committed by an infidel against a Muslim, or, even if it doesn't right the wrong, as long as it 'makes them pay.'  (For what it's worth, Islam does not have the same laity/clergy dynamic that is present in Judaism and Christianity.)

And in order to bring things full circle, who, in political power plays, put many if not most of those governments in power?  In that sense at least, it seems the chicken has come home to roost.  That having been said, given prevailing custom it is unlikely that any organically grown governments would be or would have been any more inclined to do anything, so the damage we've done is probably minimal.  However, this relative innocuousness in outcome does not absolve our responsibility to be regretful and/or ashamed for what the world's Superpowers did to manipulate local politics in the Muslim world.

In summary: 10 years later; no answers; lots of questions; 1 dead Osama; 1 dead Saddam; an Iraqi government just waiting to be crushed by an irate Iran the moment the last Allied soldier leaves; a fragile, ineffectual Afghani government (nominally controlled by both US interests AND Taliban interests) just waiting to be overwhelmed by the Taliban as soon as the last Allied soldier leaves; ephemeral changes; boosts in overall terrorist population; a perhaps-weakened, relocated Al Qaeda; an Al Qaeda with its hand in genocide in Africa...at least we have hope that some of the 'Arab Springs' will bring the world some democracy and humanitarianism if not peace and prosperity.

That's pretty much what it boils down to.  We have hope and good intentions -- one of the hopes is that the good intentions aren't paving the way to, well, you know...