Bush and the US too worried about Terrorism ?

Great Debates
21

Before I begin, be aware that I don’t have a dog in this fight but I have to point out, that in the interests of fairness, that 9/11 will probably be remembered in future more for it’s publicity value than anything else. Callous? Possibly, and I’m sorry if it appears that way - but we need to stay balanced here. In pure “military” terms of effectiveness, Pearl Harbour was way more damaging in the context of how it hampered America’s ability to prosecute military missions in the Pacific rim.

And in terms of sheer, massive brute force on a hitherto unknown scale, well 9/11 absolutely pales into insignificance compared to the 1941 assault on Russia by the Wermacht. The seige of Stalingrad and all that.

As I said, no disrespect to the victims of 9/11 and their families - but it has to be said, it was a very staged affair - as in the eyes of the world watching, and the symbolic targets chosen etc. It was a punch straight in the middle of the USA’s face - but it was far, far from being a crippling blow. What made 9/11 so amazingly paramount in the world’s collective consciousness was the extraordinary way it was all caught on camera in real time, and the way it was so localised in very small regions and thereupon compartmentalised by the media. Also, it took place in a completely unsuspecting and peaceful environment - in full glare of the world’s camera’s - and that amplified it’s impact.

However, the march of the Japanese Imperial Army through Malaysia and Singapore was far more devastating. As was the blitzkreig of Germany through Poland in 1939 etc. In these contexts, 9/11 was a strictly amateur affair which had an extraordinary bang for buck payoff - but it was nonetheless still a small affair.

22

Well, actually Pearl Harbor wasn’t all that strategic; from what I’ve read people were wondering why the Japanese didn’t go after the Panama Canal, which would have had a far more devastating impact.
And, believe it or not, fewer people died at Pearl Harbor than did in the 9/11 attacks.
The WTC attacks resembled Pearl Harbor in that what I wondered, a day or two later, was why they didn’t attack the NYSE. Far more strategic in value, and like an attack on the Panama Canal, it would have had a far more devastating impact, as the shutdown of the NYSE for a week after the WTC attacks showed.
The DC piece included, allegedly, a planned attack on the Capitol Building. That too, had it succeeded, would have been devastating, depending on who was inside at the time.
All of which, in summary, shows that it came shockingly close to being a highly strategic surgical attack on a vital center of the US economy. Not a small affair, not at all. Not Stalingrad or anything like that, but definitely not a small affair either.
Still, I get what the APEC people were complaining about. Bush, it appears, has turned into a One Trick Pony.

23

I agree there Pantom regarding Pearl Harbour not being anywhere near as devastating as it could have been. Another question which is always asked time and time again is why didn’t the Japanese launch a 2nd wave of attacks later on the Sunday afternoon? The harbour was in a state of total shock by that stage and a 2nd wave of attacks would have allowed the Japanese to perform truckloads of strategic hits and reconnaisance.

Still, in this context, we’re doing the same thing as when we extrapolate what 9/11 “could have been” as averse to accepting what it was. Yes, inarguably, had that 4th plane succeeded in hitting Capitol Hill or the Whitehouse, certainly a massive disruption would have taken place to the mechanics of Executive Power, but I still think the inherent robustness of America’s democratic systems would have survived and continued to function in a useful manner.

Hence, to extrapolate 9/11 from what actually took place into “what could have taken place” is interesting stuff to be sure - but nonetheless I maintain that the net effect of 9/11 was nowhere near what Pearl Harbour was - at least in the context of what it meant down the road for the USA. Pearl Harbour launched the most extraordinary industrial machine into a total war footing, and I don’t believe we’ve seen that with 9/11 and Afghanistan and Iraq. I still get the impression the USA is kind of jogging, not building up too much of a sweat, if you know what I mean.

And that’s why I like to offer a counterpoint (albeit a kind and sensitive one) when I hear people say that 9/11 was the “most” this, or the “worst” that of all time… it was dreadful, horrible to be sure.

But the last 100 years have seen extraordinarily more intense and overwhelming attacks than 9/11. And yes, Pantom I agree with you on another point - the very fact that the Al Quaida people didn’t even have the brains to have a follow up attack on the NYSE some 2 days after 9/11 shows stretched they truly were - both strategically and financially.

It also shows how symbolic the 9/11 attacks were to the Arab World. The real damage they could have done was an opportunity which went begging but the symbolism itself seemed to be joyful enough.

24 
Yep correct... and Bush is giving them and himself an even bigger payoff by keeping it ever present ? The ever necessary foe that helps define the american mission ?
25

Minor nitpick…

Hamas is an Islamist group, however Fatah is not - its membership has always included a certain percentage of Christian Palestinians in both the rank and file and in the leadership.

Also…

Without going into detail on this for the nth time, I’ll just say that I remain unconvinced this is the case. Or perhaps more precisely, I remain unconvinced this is either wholely or primarily the case. I agree you can certainly find rhetoric from these groups to back up your argument. But best as I can tell, much of raison d’etre of these groups seems to be rooted primarily in local issues, with the U.S. being more the distracting boogeyman de jure. MHO.

  • Tamerlane
26

Tamerlane: Hamas is an Islamist group, however Fatah is not

Oops sorry, you’re right.

XT: What I’m saying here is that, IF France was attacked, and IF THEY felt, for whatever reason, that they had to go into Iran or Syria (note, they are unrelated to Afghanistan where AQ is…in other words, IF France wanted to expand the conflict beyond simply going after the folks that did the deed, for whatever reasons THEY felt they had to), then IMO the US would not block such a move […]

And IMO you’re wrong. “For whatever reasons they felt they had to”? That’s a hell of a blank check to give any country for launching an invasion. And if the “reasons they felt they had to” seemed to us weak and unconvincing, it would be completely irresponsible not to oppose it. I certainly hope the US wouldn’t think that a terrorist attack on France would require us to rubberstamp any war that France chose to start, and I don’t believe we would. I don’t agree with you that such rubberstamping is an obligation of “good allies” or even good “business partners”.

27

France didn’t block us from going into Afghanistan, and I doubt we’d block them from responding to a direct attack on their territory by terrorists sponsored by a state.

Assuming they could actually pull it off, something I doubt.

28

The US did block the French, British and Israeli attempt to grab the Suez Canal… there is a precendent.

29

And France tried to block us from going into Iraq.

Neither the Suez war nor the Iraq war were in response to a direct attack.

I don’t think any nation would allow itself to be restrained if it was attacked directly if it was capable of responding.

30

Woo.

“9/11 will be remembered mainly as a publicity stunt.”

Well, perhaps. Militarily, it stunk, as has been pointed out. It also pretty much erased any sympathy the average American had for Palestinians or Arab interests, since your average American doesn’t know the difference between an Egyptian, a Saudi, a Palestinian, a Jordanian, and so on.

The NYSE would have been a better target, true. But the NYSE doesn’t show up as well from the air.

It seems like a safe bet that the targets were chosen largely for their symbolic value, and that the attacks weren’t INTENDED to be “military”… they were intended to demonstrate the psychotic intent of the organization that sponsored them. “We’re so crazy, and we hate you so much, we’ll do any kind of atrocity necessary to win. Fear us.”

Ultimately, however, it seems like the whole thing was kinda counterproductive. Never again will Americans trust Middle Eastern hijackers, or cooperate with a Middle Easterner with a weapon, for fear that the guy will simply kill you anyway. The actions of 9/11 demonstrated (for most practical purposes) that any kind of rational approach in search of solutions is a non-starter…

…and therefore pretty much justifies any kind of craziness that any American politician wants to pull. Would we have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq if not for 9/11? I seriously doubt it. Saber-rattling, sure, but not invasion.

So is Bush obsessing? No. Bush, I think, is primarily interested in consolidating his own power base and pursuing his own agenda. The war on terror is a convenient tool, that’s all. Democrats starting to look good? Accuse them of being “soft on terror.” It is, in many ways, I think, the Cold War all over again. The techniques politicians used against each other then are still valid, and I think we’ll be seeing more of this as the election grows closer…

31

Wow, an actual discussion. I like it.

A couple of things, the NYSE couldn’t be hit by a jet liner so it would have had to have been blown up Oklahoma City style. Tough to do as a follow up because of security. I would have had to have been part of a first strike. And it wouldn’t affect anything because the NYSE has redundancies. It would strictly be symbolic.

Pearl Harbor and the Russian equivalent were not terrorist acts, they were a declaration of war with the intent to conquer. I would not compare them in the context of terrorism but the comparison in damage is valid.

I agree that the US would survive a hit on the executive branch, it would still trigger a collapse in the economic stability of the world markets (the lemming principle). It wouldn’t be the end of civilization by any means, but you would see a massive depression that most people alive have not experienced.

Your observation of what happened after Pearl Harbor is accurate in that there is no massive military buildup but you need to look at the nature of war. What historically wins wars, above all the sacrifices made, is the ability to adapt to current situations. What you don’t see is a huge move towards intelligence. That is the weapon being developed on the fly in this war. If building tanks were needed, we would be building tanks right now.

In the 1st Gulf war you saw “bunker busters” used. These were literally developed overnight by welding up tank gun barrels and putting in a counting device in the warhead. The delayed fuse war head has been a staple that goes back at least to WW-II but it was adapted further for this application. I don’t want to get off target with a history of winning strategies but it is always innovation that wins under adverse conditions.

32 
Hhmm... we know Bush is milking 9/11... but is he overdoing it ? Depending too much on it ? He must after all still get other foreign affairs stuff right. He still needs to get trade and commerce concessions/deals. Is he doing the 9/11 line too much even for the good of his own career and re-election ? After all american voters might think he is a one trick pony too ? Or he will concentrate on other issues closer to the election ?
33

A majority of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was tied in to the 9/11 attacks. And as long as that ignorance exists, Bush will gladly play the terrorism card for all it’s worth.

Mark my words, Bush’s 2004 campaign can be summarized in one sentence: “Vote for me or terrorists will kill yer family!” :rolleyes:

34

No one is seeing it, because it just ain’t happening.

35

We were always at war with Ocenia …

No they didn’t. They blocked the attempt to legitimate the war using the UN, that’s all. They were against the war, they overtly spoke about their opinion. But they did not block anything.

36

Just an example of how China is viewing things in a more ample perspective in comparison to the USA:

[China Breaks Out](http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3660210/)
37

I don’t have too much to add to this discussion except to register some degree of agreement with Rashak Mani and rjung.

Although I generally support Bush, I think he needs to do a better job articulating what America is for, not just what it is against.

I thought Bush’s speech in London was a good start when he seemed to embrace the notion that America’s security - and the security of the rest of the free world - is intimately tied to promoting the dignity and welfare of ordinary people in those nations currently exporting terrorism.

I think it was a good thing that he called America’s 60-year policy of upholding its geopolitical and financial interests in the ME - at the expense of the citizens of the ME - a failure.

I hope he does more of the same in the future.

38

Remember that Al Qaeda is also defined more by what it is against than what it is for… some bushites asked, correctly, what Al Qaeda wants for the future of the ME and naturally the answer beyond “US leaving the region” was blank. Its easy to complain, bicker, kill and attack… hard is building something.