Why did radical Islamic terrorists kill almost 3,000 Americans a decade ago?
Few still believe the old myth that U.S. foreign policy or support for Israel logically earned us Osama bin Laden’s wrath. After all, the U.S. throughout the 1990s had saved Islamic peoples from Bosnia and Kosovo to Somalia and Kuwait. Russia and China, in contrast, had oppressed or killed tens of thousands of their own Muslims without much fear of provoking al-Qaeda.
Moreover, thousands of Arabs have been killed recently, but by their own Libyan and Syrian governments, not Israeli Defense Forces. Al-Qaeda still issues death threats to Americans even though its original pretexts for going to war — such as U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia — have long been irrelevant.
Advertisement
On this ten-year anniversary of 9/11, no one has yet refuted the general truth that bin Laden tried to hijack popular Arab discontent over endemic poverty and self-induced misery. In cynical Hitlerian fashion, al-Qaeda’s propagandists sought to blame the mess of the Arab Middle East on Jews and foreigners, rather than seeking to address homegrown corrupt kleptocracies, inefficient statism, indigenous tribalism, gender apartheid, and religious fundamentalism and intolerance.
Past Western appeasement of terrorism only convinced the manipulative bin Laden that he might kill Westerners without much fear of retaliation, as he presented himself to the Islamic street as the new Saladin who had humbled the Western infidel.
Another post-9/11 myth assured us that George W. Bush foolishly squandered a rare national unity by enacting unlawful and unnecessary homeland-security measures and starting wasteful and unwinnable wars. The myth seems to suggest that if only we had not gone into Iraq or opened Guantanamo, we would still be at peace and, left and right alike, flying American flags from our cars’ antennas.
But we know that this theory is largely a fable. From 2001 to 2008, almost every domestic and foreign security expert assured us that the next 9/11 was not a matter of “if,” but only of “when.” Yet ten years later, there has not been a single comparable terrorist attack, despite dozens of foiled efforts to shoot and blow up Americans. What happened?
The Patriot Act, renditions, tribunals, preventive detention, new bothersome security measures, and the use of Predator drones have all weakened al-Qaeda and have made it difficult to attack Americans at home. For all the acrimony over Afghanistan and Iraq, tens of thousands of jihadists were killed abroad, and consensual governments that fight terrorists still survive in place of dictatorships.
And where now are the likes of Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Moveon.org, Code Pink, and the entire anti-war movement that for years dominated the news, assuring us that we had lost our freedoms at home and caused only mayhem abroad?
The truth is they mostly dropped out of the news when Barack Obama was elected president. Apparently these loud megaphones had all along been more interested in partisan politics than principled criticism. In one of the strangest turnabouts in modern political history, fierce anti-war and anti-administration critic Barack Obama, upon taking the office of the presidency, either embraced or expanded almost all of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism policies.
Obama also left mostly unchanged U.S. policy in Afghanistan and Iraq, and joined a third Middle East war by bombing Libya. Indeed, Vice President Joe Biden boasted that a calm Iraq could be one of the administration’s “greatest achievements.” In 2012, there will be no Obama reelection commercials bragging about the promised closure of Guantanamo Bay, but plenty taking credit for killing bin Laden inside Pakistan, a country where we have increased targeted drone assassinations fivefold since 2009.
President Obama, unlike candidate Obama, understood that the past unpopular U.S. measures kept us safe for seven years, and so had to be continued. He also guessed that when he put his own brand on these once widely caricatured but necessary anti-terrorism measures, the furor that had plagued the country from 2003 to 2008 would simply end in a whimper. And he was absolutely right on both counts.
Conservatives were once demonized for George Bush’s “smoke ’em out” and “dead or alive” tough talk about the War on Terror. Liberals were caricatured for Obama’s “overseas contingency operations” and “man-caused disasters” touchy-feely euphemisms. But the unspoken truth of the decade following 9/11 is that, for all the left and right talking points, Americans institutionalized policies and protocols that so far have kept us safe from another murderous attack.
Teddy Roosevelt said it best. "Speak softly and carry a big stick."
George W. Bush did not speak softly. He spoke loudly and carried a big stick.
President Obama speaks softly, even while increasing drone attacks.
And who got the job done?
Also, one important difference between Bush and Obama is that there is no torture in the form of waterboarding under Obama.
In any case, Obama inherited Bush's foreign policy decisions, just as he inherited a huge domestic policy mess. Now that we have them, where exactly would Obama responsibly put the prisoners in Guantanamo? Likewise, now that we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, it takes time to responsibly extract ourselves. That doesn't mean we should have gone to war in these areas in the first place.
The intelligence that was used to make the case to go into Iraq was wrong. That is problematic. But whatever the reason we are there, it makes sense to extract ourselves responsibly while leaving behind a democratic government if at all possible.
George W. Bush no doubt made the best decisions he was capable of, given the incredibly difficult challenges he faced. That doesn't mean he did not make very serious mistakes. First among them was the use of false intelligence to justify invading Iraq.
"George W. Bush did not speak softly. He spoke loudly and carried a big stick.
President Obama speaks softly, even while increasing drone attacks.
And who got the job done?"
I'm not sure you're making the point you think you're making. Bush toppled two hostile governments that funded terrorism beyond their borders, compelled Libya to abandom their nuke program, smashed al Qaeda, and developed the intelligence to catch bin Laden.
Obama does look remarkably competant when he continued Bush policies.
I have some major issues with Bush's foreign and domestic policies. He and McCain are some reasons I left the GOP in 2008. But let's not undersell how he shifted the fulcrum in the Middle East and set policies in place that, when followed, show effectiveness.
Waterboarding can be torture for some. Then again, pushing on pressure points can be torturous to some. It's a matter of training, tolerence, and instestinal fortitude. So, yes, enhanced interrogation techniques would be torture to you, but you would've cracked before they were discussed. KSM and others brush off the techniques that would break you. Enhance interrogation techniques work on them, but are still not turture (notice how quickly people recover from the techniques).
Indeed it does. Bush WAS a poor communicator. But he had convictions behind his strategery & had the stones to go before Congress and send Powell to the UN to make a case for his actions.
The Adjunct President, by contrast, wages shadow wars in Yemen & Pakistan without ever making a public proclamation to justify bombing civilians of 2 of our putative allies.
The Adjunct President rides to the rescue for "days not weeks" in Libya not b/c of American interests but b/c the Arab League & NATO endorse action & his staff crows that he is "leading from behind".
Yet he can't be troubled to condemn, much less intervene, the actions of brutal dictators in Iran & Syria lest it spoil his outreached hand of diplomacy?
"there is no torture in the form of waterboarding under Obama"
If a Nobel Peace Prize winner orders a bomb dropped on a village in Waziristan, does it qualify as torture? Ooohh, I love brain teasers!
"where exactly would Obama responsibly put the prisoners in Guantanamo"
He's the Commander in Chief. Our military operates sites all over the world that would serve his MSNBC approved theme of "closing Gitmo". Obviously he could always release them so they could go back to their local Rotary Club and job in middle management at Rent-a-Camel (since they're just innocents turned over by rival tribes & Haliburton mercenaries, per the liberal meme) no?
As a young person, I really took to heart the Kerry/Edwards/Obama criticism of W as being based on liberal opposition to wreckless nation-building & concern for troops. My older friends assured me it was nothing but craven politicking. 3 years of Obama certainly educated me on leftist bluster and letting no crisis go to waste.
Mr. Welker:
I see, so the president is the victim of inheritance. In view of his full-blooded liberal status, he certainly comes by victimhood legitimately. Now his sole task is to act, as you put it multiple times, “responsibly.”
Reading you from left to left, I can only assume responsible action is any such as does not endorse Bush’s original contentions.
It's America's fault...thus proving Mr. Hanson's point.
And I like how the deference is given to Muslims by calling their lands "holy". What, pray tell, makes the Middle East holy? If that is holy, then I am glad to be residing in hell.
That said, I wish more folks would read Osama bin Laden's original 1998 fatwa against America.
Osama bin Laden had one major gripe against the U.S.: He didn't like having all those "infidel" American troops walking around on the "sacred" soil of Saudi Arabia.
Those troops were put there beginning in 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Unfortunately, after the U.S. kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, those troops remained. Indefinitely, with no plan to remove them.
The first World Trade Center bombing took place just 2 years later.
That's part of this post World War II mentality of fighting half-wars in which the U.S. is satisfied to have a stalemate--or even a low-level war--involving endless expenditure of blood and treasure.
It always leaves work undone--and we have to come back and finish the job later, at much higher cost.
Obama didn't "inherit" anything. He asked for it, said he could fix it, promised change, and got himself elected, so stop blaming Bush already. Obama doesn't speak softly about the Tea Party or the Republicans--just Al Queda and terrorism. His successes notwithstanding, he continues to lead from behind, and to blame others. I'll take Teddy Roosevelt's rhetoric to Obama's anytime.
"Past Western appeasement of terrorism only convinced the manipulative bin Laden that he might kill Westerners without much fear of retaliation ...."
Excuse me but isn't this the nutshell?
If China and Russia have had less to fear from the bin laden types then the reason for the US as THE target is quite clear, myths aside.
Simply look at the Russian response to Chechnia (gosh I wish I could remember how to spell that).
Arabs do and always have respected power. The Russians and the Chinese play power politics with them and don't wait for the bin laden types to act first. Shoot first, ask questions later.
You may look like a barbarian but at least you won't be a dead samaritan.
" In cynical Hitlerian fashion, al-Qaeda’s propagandists sought to blame the mess of the Arab Middle East on Jews and foreigners, rather than seeking to address homegrown corrupt kleptocracies, inefficient statism, indigenous tribalism, gender apartheid, and religious fundamentalism and intolerance."
What? They blamed their own government too, but it's easier to ignore facts that don't play into your argument. Like how Bin Laden wanted to liberate Saudi Arabia too from the Royal family...They did try and fight other governments, who by the way, were mostly backed by the US. This article is a joke right?
And the justification of bin Laden's actions on 9/11. At least Hezbollah attacked military barracks; al Qaeda attacked Americans on the mainland, TWICE, many Americans who if were alive would be sympathetic to the view that the attack on America was justified. bin Laden was a coward who couldn't carry out his own dirty work.
Ah, I guess David Welker is now here to replace MikeB or something. The only way to accept that Obama inherited Bush's foreign policy "messes" is to accept that Obama lied about his position prior to becoming president but, because he is a Democrat and not a Republican, he will not be held to account for his lying. "Bush lied, people died!" was it? Obama lied and it's just another day in the life of this "historic" presidency.
"And where now are the likes of Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Moveon.org, Code Pink, and the entire anti-war movement that for years dominated the news, assuring us that we had lost our freedoms at home and caused only mayhem abroad?"
During the W years, I posted in his defense on the local politics board.
I noticed the sudden silence and the reticence to discuss how Obama was leaving practically all of the Bush-Cheney decisions in place. When I pressed the local left on their hypocrisy, their general response basically amounted to "hey, our guy is POTUS now and we control the US Legislature".
If you now believe that all of the protest during 2001-2008 was political pandering to bring the Democratic Left back into power, you would be correct.
Actually, I think you have to give Cindy Sheehan some credit (disturbing, I know). She actually is still out there protesting the Obama administration's foreign policy. Blame the media for not giving her the microphone any more, but at least she's been fairly consistent.
Yes Ms Sheehan has behaved consistently, but the rest of the left's smear machine has gone silent now.
did she sleep in a ditch near Obama's martha' Vineyard vaction home? If so, where was the press and the hoards of liberals cheering her on? Oh yeah, that's right, the left doesn't want to embarass Obama so silence is golden.
VDH has been pointing out the hypocrasy since the beginning of the Obama administration. Liberal commenters here have been nothing his grammar and syntax errors because they cannot refute his claims.
Sorry but once again liberalism's shredded, tattered credibility is further diminished. We're into imaginary numbers now. Selective outrage might work with true believers but I don't see it gaining much traction among thoughtful people.
