Strangely, both the media and the public rarely mention some of the most important aftershocks in the decade since 9/11. Here are some representative examples of landmark events that to this day remain mostly undiscussed.
1. No more falling skyscrapers? Few imagined that the United States could go an entire decade without another major terrorist attack — other than freelancing jihadists’ killing members of the American armed forces. Almost monthly, U.S. authorities have thwarted serial attempts to cause mayhem on airliners, bridges, city squares, shopping malls, and high-rises. It was almost as if the more we caricatured the often silly security measures at the airport, blasted Guantanamo Bay, and ridiculed renditions, the more we assumed that our security, initially thought permanently imperiled (“not if, but when”), was once again our birthright. Someone somewhere did something that kept us safe, but we were strangely afraid to acknowledge that there was any utility in the very protocols and foreign operations that had weakened our enemies to the point of an inability to replicate 9/11. If immediately after the attacks in New York and Washington we accepted that the old security was no longer possible, soon thereafter we started assuming not only that it was natural, but that, in organic fashion, it had reappeared through spontaneous regeneration.
Advertisement
2. The greatest political turnabout of the age. If one had collated everything candidate Obama declaimed about the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism policies from autumn of 2007 to November 2008, then one would have expected a President Obama to dismantle the entire Bush-Cheney national-security apparatus upon entering office, to pull out of Iraq (he originally said this should be done by March 2008, no less), and to keep our military out of the Middle East. Instead, Obama retained Secretary of Defense Gates, stuck to the Bush-Petraeus withdrawal plan in Iraq, expanded Predator-drone attacks in Waziristan, surged into Afghanistan, bombed Libya, and embraced everything from Guantanamo to renditions. That about-face, I think, was the most radical political development of the last quarter-century, and was treated with near silence by the media. It was as if Moveon.org, Code Pink, and Michael Moore had simply vanished from the face of the earth sometime around January 2009. The notion today that a canonized Michael Moore would be invited to a lookout perch at the 2012 Democratic Convention or that Moveon.org would run another “General Betray Us” ad is surreal. A cynic would say that the anti–War on Terror movement did its job in helping to elect Barack Obama, and then moved on, so to speak, when Barack Obama likewise did his job in continuing his predecessor’s anti-terrorism policies.
3. The taboo enemy dead. After Vietnam, who would wish to count enemy dead? To a 21st-century public, such terrible arithmetic might seem macabre, intrinsically politicized, or simply irrelevant in war. The age-old idea that killing die-hard enemies wins wars and ensures the peace is for some antithetical to the spirit of counterinsurgency doctrine, at least superficially so. Few would ever channel William Tecumseh Sherman’s frightening remarks that to win the Civil War the Union army would have to kill or humiliate several thousands of the Southern “cavalier” class, whose livelihoods depended on slavery, whose zeal had started the war, and whose boasts of martial superiority had galvanized the Confederate belief that its fighters were far better than the Northerners and could trump inferior resources.
Tens of thousands of hard-core jihadists from as far away as Algeria, Chechnya, Egypt, the Gulf monarchies, Libya, Syria, and Yemen obeyed the calls for jihad issued by the likes of Osama bin Laden, Dr. Zawahiri, and Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi. They flocked to al-Qaeda’s “main theater” of jihad in Iraq — and in Baghdad and throughout Anbar Province were killed in droves by the U.S. military and its Iraqi allies. Only off the record will military officers confess that the eventual American success in Iraq was due in some part to doing away with murderous jihadists and impressing the local population with our martial superiority. And even off the record, few will suggest that the absence of such killers from the world’s pool of hard-core terrorists may well have made life safer at home. We are in a new age when we “beat” or “subdue” the enemy but do not admit that we do that often through killing him. The Iraq War has become a story about troop levels, hearts and minds, and training the Iraqis, but not much about a shooting war in which thousands of jihadists lost.
This is yet another goal post move by an anti victory propagandist.
It is important to understand how leftists think. As Eric Hoffer explain in his excellent "The True Believer" liberals must believe with all their being that their dogma explains everything, that it has the answer to every question.
Therefore any activity that is contrary to the dogma must be construed as a failure. It is just that simple. To admit that Bush got it right, in anything, is tantamount to an admission that the dogma is not all knowing and all encompassing. No liberal can withstand that level of cognitive dissonance.
This understanding of the thought patterns of the left delivers ample opportunity for amusement. One can easily predict the response that will by provoked by some statements. For example were I to opine that Ronald Reagan was a great president a dogmatic liberal's pavlovian response would be "Iran Contra". Mention Sarah Palin and get "Quitter". And so it goes.
so I don't expect that the left will ever acknowlege any good from our effort in Iraq, it is simply not possible.
Now, what I do think is the most important thing we did in Iraq? We built a honey trap and killed or captured thousands of bad guys. We delivered a very strong "don't mess with us" message. A message that the Arab world has apparently received and understood.
Brave words in the souk were no match for facing off against the USMC and that lesson was absorbed quickly.
No, we sacrificed 4000 Americans so that those who want us dead, would themselves be killed.
The result of those 4000 deaths is that 10's if not 100's of thousands of innocents did not die.
Why do you believe we should cower in fear to those who want us to die?
You may not be a liberal, but your ability to think clearly is similar.
Thanks for the lecture on morality. I'll be sure to share your insight with my son who fought two tours in Iraq with the USMC. Where did your sons fight?
And yes, we sent a message. And yes some of our best died in the process. The point isn't to keep score of our losses, tragic though they are. The point is to win. And you win by destroying the enemy's will to carry on the struggle.
Isn't that exactly what VDH is pointing to here? In my view part of the reason that we've had 10 years without another attack is that the liberals (and sorry but I'm including you here) are just plain wrong. Instead of our efforts being a recruiting tool for the radicals it has had quite the oppasite effect. The deaths of untold thousands of jihadis cooled the ardor of the rest of the arab world.
Bing West, in "No True Glory" notes that the Marines killed chechens in Fallujah, so VDH's point is further proved. The message was delivered and received. Hasan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbullah, believes that his side will win because they worship death, while we worship life. American deaths, in spite of our love of life, made the message that much clearer.
As VDH points out, the discussion some things appear to be taboo. Your response to me certainly proves his point.
Stosh, I don't believe you for a moment. It's possible that you are a Ron Paul type but that is as stupid as the lefties. Pure libertarianism is as impractical as leftism.
Punishing Iraq was as critical to this war as anything we have done. I would like to see us get out of Afghanistan as there is zero chance of a modern society in that country but Iraq is a worthwhile effort to bring Islam into the 21st century.
So many strawmen in such a small post.
Nobody claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
However Saddam was heavily involved in supporting terrorism.
Yes, we had to punish elements of Iraq that supported terrorism.
How is the concept of punishing bad behavior not conservative?
Saddam wasn't involved in any terrorism against the United States. None Zero.
As far as Arab dictators go Saddam was a liberal. Christians thrived in Iraq. Women were free to wear western clothing. Now that the Shia have taken over Christians are being murdered or fleeing. Women are back under the Burqa. And as soon as we leave Iran moves in.
Of course, Saddam was a "liberal", in exactly the same sense as the man he modelled himself on, "uncle Joe", Stalin.
The right reason for getting rid of Saddam was that he would never rest until he built a totalitarian empire, backed on oil wealth and armed with WMDs, just like the one his role model had done.
But, of course, that's not a good reason for commies or Ron Paul supporters, who never saw anything wrong with either the original or the copy. In exactly the same way, there was no reason to do anything against the Japanese (after all, what was the US navy doing in the Philippines?) or the nice liberal Herr Hitler, who had also never engaged in any terrorism against the US.
what do you call the unprovoked attack on the uss stark by saddam's air force? i call it an act of war. even if the war in iraq wasnt a good idea, it certainly was justified. delayed justice is still justice.
Iraq was invaded because 1.Saddam committed an Act of War by violating the UN ceasefire,by firing missiles at US aircraft enforcing the UN no-fly zone,and 2.Saddam had WMD programs and was interfering with UN Inspectors trying to determine if he had destroyed all his WMD,the stuff he USED on Halabja. 3. Saddam was misusing the UN "oil for Food" program,using the funds for other things.
Also,invading Iraq was a STRATEGIC move,but I don't expect you to see that. It IS the reason why so many other Arab nations are now overthrowing their tyrannies.Those people have seen that Iraq has a fair chance towards democratic rule.
Gotta love it. The liberals see one last chance to trot out thier tired old memes. At this point I have no doubt that folks like william R can recite these talking points rote from memory. Somehow this is supposed to impress. I just don't see how.
What is warped is your sense of history. As a vet, I hate that any of our warriors have to die, but that is what happens in wars. Visit the WW2 memorial where stars shine for 400 THOUSAND americans who died for freedom. These are the opening skirmishes of WW3. Bin Laden preached that America had no stomach for a protracted fight, and your response makes me fear that he may have judged correctly a sizeable segment of our society.
