l0k1:
They did.
They did not, at the time.
True
There was plenty of evidence, and in addition to whatever evidence the United States and other outside parties had, the Taliban, who were fully in contact with Bin Laden and his people, knew full well with even greater certainty that they were behind it. The Taliban’s “request for evidence” was them merely playing games to both manipulate PR and to give bin Laden time and opportunity to escape.
That’s like saying that the nine baseball players who were in the line-up at the end of a winning baseball game were the only people who won the game. It ignores the dozens of people who were involved in the planning and preparation for the game, and the hundreds of people in the organization that were responsible for the team being put together and maintained in the first place.
It’s generally agreed that Osama Bin Laden and the rest of the Al Qaeda leadership had gone to ground in the Tora Bora range in eastern Afghanistan at the time of the 9/11 attacks.
There is no international standard whatsoever by which the Taliban government of Afghanistan in 2001 was considered reasonable.
Nitpick: This “general agreement” doesn’t ring my bell. And, if we stipulate that “December hide-out” and “September hide-out” are two different things, your cited source doesn’t obviously join in on that “general agreement” either.
Asking to see the receipts is slightly more reasonable than killing a bunch of innocent civilians. If everyone knew where the AQ leadership was, why didn’t we just go pick them up? Why start a neverending crusade?
And yes, those are the issues with Afghanistan.
It was a just war, but now we are immersed in a quagmire, just like every other nation that has ventured into Afghanistan.
Americans get it mixed up with the Shrubs invasion of Iraq, which was NOT a just war.
It wasnt just the leadership. The Taliban was actively supporting the terrorism, with terrorist training camps, etc. Besides the Taliban was pretty damn evil, what with the way they treated women, etc.
But it’s the scale of the threats that dictate the nature and size of the response. Sure, both attacks were shocking to the American public, and caught the U.S. dreadfully unawares. To that point they are analogous. The nature of the threat, though, and thus appropriateness of the response are entirely different.
It is now plainly evident that the response to 9/11 was inept. The war in Afghanistan is a disaster, one in which many Americans and Allied men and women have died pointlessly. That is, in large part, due to the imbecilic Iraq War, which was a criminal act and just completely fucked up everything. The entire thing has been a fiasco.
But how will veterans of the wars we regarded? I really don’t see any vitriol towards them at all. Soldiers in the USA have never in the history of the country been so respected, and to a large extent that’s true in the rest of the English-speaking world, too, and most of those countries were involved in one or the other of those wars.
This pretty much. Unlike Vietnam, in which the government and soldiers were both viewed negatively, American society nowadays puts a pretty clear divide between the politicians (“bad”) and the troops (“good.”) The latter does not get blamed for the orders of the former.
All fine and dandy, but where is the source?
Given that the veterans of post-Vietnam wars were volunteers, and, in view of the mixed feelings of the public about America’s endless wars, perhaps the adulation will diminish, although there will always be a super-patriotic group. We admire people who serve, but far more so if they did so for a reason. And I find little reason for starting the recent wars, let alone continuing them. OK, this is not the fault of the soldiers, they go where they are told to.
And the VA hospitals will continue to fill up.
I actually think the opposite will happen, as older draft-era veterans from when the military was much larger, uh… “age out” of their treatment. I go into the VA in a West Texas town (decent sized, but still not a huge metropolitan area) and most of the people I see are what I would call elderly. I’m in my mid-30s, and I very rarely see someone younger-looking than me, or indeed even comparable in age.
Sometimes, I feel like the ever-expanding list of conditions covered by “agent orange” is just a way for certain republican politicians to avoid having to tell their elderly constituents what they tell the younger folks: “Hey, if you want to not die from diabetes, I guess you should have lived more responsibly and set aside money for health care.” Because we STILL lack proper healthcare nationwide, but throw in the “but he’s a veteran!” plea and suddenly Republican senators start falling all over themselves to show off how patriotic they are by getting them healthcare through the VA.
Because how do you distinguish the one guy or gal who got diabetes or cancer as a result of “agent orange exposure” from the thousand or hundred who would have gotten it anyway? You don’t. And now anyone who has so much seen a drum full of some unspecified substance or served within 200 miles of Vietnam is presumed to have been exposed, and therefore coverage.
Next up on the horizon: Gulf War Syndrome. But at least the population size of Gulf War/GWOT a veterans will be smaller than the population of Vietnam era veterans, which is why I believe overcrowding of the VA will be a passing problem, assuming current levels of infrastructure.
Multiple sources consistently report >40% of post 9/11 vets have disability ratings - vastly higher than previous generations.
Sure - SOME - percentage is undoubtedly due to reduced fatalities from improved care, and improved diagnostic tools. But I suggest it is equally likely that SOME percentage reflects an entitlement attitude by today’s vets.
“Equally likely”? Based on what evidence?
IIRC 9/11 perps trained in Afghanistan. And in Germany, Florida, and Arizona. Perps and planners included Saudis, Emiratis, Egyptians, Lebanese, but no Afghans nor Iraqis. So who got invaded?
How will post-draft US vets been seen? Depends on who’s considering. I see mostly folks with few options at home; it’s better than staying poor. The leadership OTOH has forgotten or neglected how to win wars. Career trumps victory. Climb the uniformed bureaucracy, kiss sufficient ass, and graduate to a nice corporate or think-tank sinecure.
I’m 'Nam-era. I enlisted and bypassed an offer for OCS. I feel for all other enlistees. You’re only there because you think it’s better than not.
And maybe you actually have a sense of duty, of putting the national interest ahead of your own goals. You put your life on the line for others. That’s not noble; it’s prudent.
Personally I think the notion that Americas worship/revere/respect the military took a major and irreparable hit when John Kerry, a decorated veteran, was successfully swiftboated. It became obvious how contingent and situational this respect is, and how readily it is abandoned when it becomes inconvenient.
A Presidential candidate is rather a rare thing, though. That’s an exception that proves the rule.
Like all things religious, reverence and worship is quite often a matter of convenience and hypocrisy.
Quibble: exceptions TEST and DISPROVE rules. If a rule says such-and-such, and an example violates it, then either the rule is incorrect, or the exception is faulty or misunderstood.
How are veterans seen by the US public? However they’re portrayed.
RioRico, have you really never heard or read that phrase?