I’ve noticed in a lot of threads lately that there are a lot of people who seem to believe that the current presidential administration has been running things all wrong since 9/11. My question is simple…What would you have done differently? Would you have done things essentially the same? Maybe some combination of the two?
I wouldn’t have the Attorney General sacrifice the rights of American citizens in the name of “security,” that’s for sure.
“Since the terrorists attacked us because they’re jealous of our freedoms, let’s get rid of those freedoms and arrest everyone we dislike!”
First of all the terrorists aren’t jealous of the freedoms that the US has. If anything they are happy because those freedoms ALLOWED the terrorists to successfully carry out their plan.
bin Ladin was pissed off at the US because US troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, not because of how “free” the citizens were back in the actual US.
As far as what would/should/could have been done differently, one thing I would have done away with was this bullshit about saying “an unspecified threat” has been put out by the FBI.
That’s it.
No mention of what the threat might be.
No mention of where the threat might take place.
Just this annoyingly vague “unspeciifed threat” bullshit.
It’s even more annoying when they say that they can’t discuss specifics about the threat because that would compromise national security.
How would it compromise it?
We can’t say, because to do so would be to compromise that.
One thing to have done differently would have been to commit U.S. ground troops to sealing the border and pursuing Al Qaida leaders during the Tora Bora campaign. (See U.S. Concludes Bin Laden Escaped at Tora Bora Fight: Failure to Send Troops in Pursuit Termed Major Error from the Washington Post.)
And still are stationed there.
But even if the troops left, OBL would still be pissed off at the US because he objects to (what he sees as) excessive American influence over the governments of Arab/muslim countries.
From OBL’s perspective, America is a rich country because it exploits the natural resources (oil) of the Arab countries. America’s wealth comes at the expense of Arab/muslim nations which are mostly very poor.
All this is made even worse because the US is a non-muslim (infidel) country.
I also don’t understand why they keep putting out non-specific terror alerts. When the IRA were active in the UK, people just adopted a constant state of alertness and vigilance. The government didn’t put out warnings every time they had information about a possible bomb plot.
The security services and the police would do whatever they could (behind the scenes) to foil the plot. There’s no point in scaring the shit out of the general population with constant warnings - there’s nothing the population can do about it except be generally vigilant.
To answer the OP:
I’m glad to see the back of the taliban but the Saudi government is not much better. Rather than fighting fire with fire and hunting down al qaeda all over the world, the US would have more success if it used it’s power and wealth to improve the lot of the poor muslim countries and tried to bring about democratic change in places like Saudi.
You can’t defeat terror groups militarily, you have to address the root causes. You have to ask yourself why they get support from people and then deal with this.
A simple step like withdrawing US troops from Saudi would go a long way towards reducing support for al Qaeda.
What MEBuckner said. The unwillingness of our military commanders to commit ground troops when we knew we had the bastards cornered is disgraceful.
Well, I probably would have used military force just to make it look like something was being done. Such a move was probably a political necessity.
Just the same, I doubt that there is much to be actually gained by military action in the future. One thing I would work on constantly would be trying to interrupt the flow of money to terrorist activities. I’m not sure how this would work, but a financial wizard like Cheney, who got 70 million from Halliburton as a going away present after a Ho-Hum term as CEO, should have some good ideas about such matters.
I wouldn’t have used the terror to shill for god and patriotism in my speeches, which as president aren’t my bussiness in the first place, but rather to the basic moral and legal values that I was elected to uphold, by which we are all constituted as one nation.
I certainly wouldn’t have pretended that being President makes me a theologian qualified to rule on which religious beliefs are correct and which are not.
I wouldn’t have used backhanded Orwellian condemnations of all criticism of my actions.
I wouldn’t have lied about the fact that I was briefed about the possibility of a 9/11 attack prior to it happening. Sure, it’s egg on my face, but if so, rightly so.
I also wouldn’t have lied about my own campaign promises, claiming that while campaigning, I had “told the American people” that I would only return to deficit spending if there was a recession, war, or national emergency, when in fact I had made no such statement in public, and indeed had continually campaigned on a platform that contradicted such a position.
I wouldn’t use a terror attack as a premise for shoving through ridiculously irrelevant spending bills, pork, and protectionism.
Militarily, I doubt I would have done much different, because as with most administrations, the military mostly decides what is the best way to acheive the objectives I set, and those objectives would not have been very different (I can’t imagine that they’d have been very different for any president).
I guess I could go on.
And orget about after 9/11. If I was President, I wouldn’t have diverted resources away from terrorism to fight an utterly pointless drug war.
It seems that we have some people who think that they are witty, and rather then actually answer the question, would rather critique President Bush yet again. Nice.
*I would have upped our troop levels in Afghanistan. (Sure, activate a portion of the CRAF, it’s not like the airlines at 100% utilization). The whole of the XVIII Corp would have been in there, if I had my druthers.
I would have demanded port access in Pakistan, along with a ‘land bridge’ to Afghanistan. They most likely would have agreed, but if not, time to get on the phone with India and decide how much longer Pakistan has as an independent state.
*I would arm the pilots. Mineta is an ignorant little SOB.
*I would either eliminate the CIA, FBI, and INS, (and replace their functions) or, at the very least, axe their respective directors. 3000 Americans died as a result of their incompetence, but nobody pays the piper?
For the CIA, I would transfer all technical recon to the NSA. The CIA should focus on analysis of intelligence that the NSA provides, covert ops, and humint. No more playing with satellites for that pathetic excuse for an agency.
*I would begin to target radical muslim clerics for assasination.
*I would have pushed much more strongly for drilling in Anwar. (A desolate arctic shithole.) Also, I would replace arab oil with Russian oil as much as possible. Russia was a dependable foe, and now, dependable ally. The arab states are dependable foes, and nominally allies.
But all this said, I would say that Pres. Bush’s team is doing a good job, all in all. Only time will tell, but I suspect that they are on the right course.
Brutus has the right idea, mostly, IMHO.
and then, sometimes, I get some extreme views.
March the troops in and make “Afghanistan” into “The Afghanistan Special Protectorate Zone”. Make it like Puerto Rico, with more sand.
Put the bastards (And by bastards I mean anyone, that ever, at any time, said ‘boo’ to the USA) and make them a deal. Play nice, or eat a bullet.
Teach them how to be Americans, and then see what happens.
Of course, I don’t feel this way all the time, just sometimes.
—It seems that we have some people who think that they are witty, and rather then actually answer the question, would rather critique President Bush yet again. Nice.—
I don’t think my comments are in any way “witty.” For goodness sake, the question asked what we would have done differently from the Bush administration: isn’t that asking for a critique?
I really WOULD have done those things different, and I consider them very serious matters, not trifles.
I think the question was "what would you do different in the ‘War on Terror’?
Not, “If I had godlike powers to circumvent the law and totally trash the electoral system till I got the results I wanted, and had an irrational fear of a Rightist government that will more than likely be gone in 8 years or less and honestly is no better or worse than any other politician, what would I do?”
—Not, “If I had godlike powers to circumvent the law and totally trash the electoral system till I got the results I wanted, and had an irrational fear of a Rightist government that will more than likely be gone in 8 years or less and honestly is no better or worse than any other politician, what would I do?”—
Did someone poop in your evening coffee or something?
The original question was: “there are a lot of people who seem to believe that the current presidential administration has been running things all wrong since 9/11.”
If you can explain how my answers to that question were out of line, or demonstrated that I want to rig the election system so that I get the results I want, go right ahead.
Are you really claiming that any possible (since this question asks what WE would do, and not just what politicians would do) president is no better or worse than any other? Why have a democracy at all then: how about a national lottery instead? I would bet that almost anyone here on this board would be a better president then our last couple of decades worth of president, for only the fact that (as far as I know) no one here IS a politican.
Oh, there’s an idea that’s sure to piss off a lot of folks. Why not just advocate nuking half the middle east while you’re at it? :rolleyes:
Yeah, never mind that it will take at least ten years before we actually get anything useful out of there, and that what we do get wouldn’t be anywhere near what we’re getting from OPEC right now. And never mind about pushing for greater fuel efficiency and CAFE standards, which would have more long-term effect in reducing our dependence on foreign oil. But hey, Bush has to pay back his pals in the oil industry.
A) Gee whiz, if we piss anybody off, they might hijack planes and crash them into our buildings. News flash: For whatever absurd reason, they are already pissed off. That is what prompted this thread in the first place; Pres.Bush’s reaction to what happened on 9-11.
B) So you would rather just ignore domestic energy sources? So what if you claim it will take 10 years to get oil out of there. That means 10 years in the future we will be that much less dependent on Arab oil. Better get started now then never.
Two things;
One – Many argue the origins of the current Pakistan-India crisis lie in with Musharraf’s willingness to become embroiled with the US during the campaign. He is not in control of the variously factioned but powerful ISI nor (fully) of the Army.
FWIW, one might even argue that the most able enemy in the war against terrorism is those elements within the ISI sympathetic to the aims of OBL’s posse – for example, one has to think OBL went somewhere after Tora Bora and with help.
We may not have seen the last of the repercussions. However, it seems pointless (and hopelessly uninformed) to speculate what may have been done with less Pakistani ‘support’.
Two - Echoing MEBuckner: We don’t know for sure it was Tommy Franks who fucked up at Tora Bora. Actually, we may never know for sure but perhaps the memoirs in a few years time will help clarify what occurred in the chain of command.
Given the record of pro-active involvement of the Administration in areas in which it has no expertise (another example: Intelligence), it would come as no great surprise to learn that Rumsfeld was behind the reluctance to allow Special Forces to get their hands dirty.
This is a link to the article which first made public British military disaffection with Tommy ‘Florida’ Franks’ strategy at Tora Bora:
Kissinger visits the SAS after Tora Bora
Sample quote:
“…So strategy was sabotaged by schizoid irresolution. There followed hours of fiffing and faffing, while gold coins were helicoptered in, to encourage the Northern Alliance. The USA is the greatest military power in the history of the planet, spending well over $300 billion a year on defence, yet everything was paralysed because it would not allow its fighting men to fight. While the generals agonised about body bags, bin Laden was escaping…”
- Hard operation facts are impossible to come by in relation to the SAS but most accounts I’ve come across say they pulled out of Tora Bora quite early and as soon as it became clear that either Franks wasn’t up to the job or he was being hamstrung by Rumsfeld and Bush.
By the time of ‘Anaconda’, the Brit Special Forces had (to the best of my knowledge) excused themselves and the Aussie and Kiwi SAS had joined up with the American Special Forces.
Tristan: "…and had an irrational fear of a Rightist government that will more than likely be gone in 8 years or less and honestly is no better or worse than any other politician…"
Tristan, I know this is off topic, but I’m wondering if you’d concede that it’s possible to dissent from a particular “Rightist government” on rational grounds (fearful or otherwise), and to believe that a better–even much better–politician is both imaginable and attainable that our current president. Because if you don’t, I wonder why you’d even take part in an undertaking called “debate.”
I agree with much of what has been said above. I believe that use of ground troops isn’t politically possible, (and I sympathize with Americans who don’t want to see a lot of deaths), but for that very reason I hope that both this and future US administrations commit themselves to fighting a war on social injustice.
I don’t believe that existing terrorists would respond immediately to such an approach, so other kinds of vigilance (e.g., intelligence) are also important; but I do believe that the long-term result would be effective. It can never hurt to take the moral high ground and actually attempt to live up to one’s own professed principles. I sympathize with the complexity of the matter for those must execute policy in the here and now. But for that very reason I share the dislike of the simplistic rhetoric of good vs. evil with its almost scary mimicking of terrorism’s logic.
I don’t see that the US can have it both ways. You can’t have a fiercely militaristic rhetoric and policy and, yet, know that at bottom you don’t want American casualities.
Peace between Israel and Palestine, peace between India and Pakistan, human rights within these countries and within the new Afghanistan have to be on top of the agenda. Instead of Star Wars–which won’t stop the kind of attack that came on 9/11, or suicide bombings in Israel–provide money for schools and infrastructure in places like Afghanistan. Let it be known, and felt, that the US is commited not only to its short-term political interests but also, in the long-term, to its own professed beliefs (not only in formal democratic rights, which can be meaningless, but in the substantive human well-being that has to underlie it for political rights to have any value).
Let it be seen that the US is ready to spend even a fraction of its $300 billion building right, rather than threatening might.
The point, my dear Brutus, is that we want to piss off only the terrorists, and not potential middle eastern allies by acting like a bunch of barbarians. There’s a world of difference between capturing Al Qaeda members and putting them on trial, and assassinating public/religious leaders just because we disagree with their message. Shall we send snipers after Al Sharpton, too? How about Pat Buchanan?
If ANWR is drained of oil after six months of full-scale pumping (as many geologists have estimated), then that’s hardly “much less dependent,” is it?
Besides, if you really want to reduce foreign oil dependence in ten years, why not push for higher fuel efficiency standards, hybrid vehicles, and methanol/ethanol power? These steps would cost less than drilling in ANWR, wouldn’t harass the Alaskan wildlife, and would get us off the foeign oil teat faster than ten years.
These are some of the things I would have done differently:
-
I agree with the criticisms of the U.S. fear of engaging ground troops in Afghanistan. Not many people know this, but for a long time Canada and Britain had more actual combatants fighting on the ground than did the U.S. What good is a rapid deployment force if you never use them?
-
I would have cracked down harder on Arafat, and on the Saudis and anyone else who continues to support terrorism. The message needs to be unequivocal: Terrorism is unacceptable. Period. But the Bush Administration’s attitude seems to be that terrorism is completely unacceptable, unless you’re a Palestinian, or a Pakistani, or a high-level Saudi advocating it, or… The ‘war on terror’ is lapsing into incoherence.
-
Domestic security? Jeez, how about doing ANYTHING but what they are currently doing. Hell, put 50 policy proposals on a dartboard and enact whatever you hit with a dart. That’s likely to be better than what the Bush administration has managed so far.
Specifically, I’d do the following things on the domestic security front:
[ul]
[li]Get rid of the stupid name ‘homeland security’. It’s an anachronism, with vague isolationist overtones. ‘Domestic Security’ is just fine, thank you.[/li][li]When people like Norman Mineta suggest that the way to improve security is to remove nail clippers and tiny pocket knives from people, FIRE them. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that steps like this don’t make people safer, but they DO divert valuable resources into meaningless tasks. Mineta should have been fired long ago.[/li][li]Involve the people. You can’t defend a free country with a central bureaucry. The people have to be involved. The primary task of the domestic security agency should have been education - teach people what to look for, teach factory owners how to secure their buildings, offer tax breaks for courses in network security, etc. I would also encourage companies to invest more in anti-terror training (there are executive security companies that offer this training) by giving tax breaks.[/li][li]Allow pilots to be armed if they wish, but more importantly, put defensive tools on the plane that passengers have access to. If our official policy has changed from, “do whatever the hijackers ask” to, “resist any way you can”, then how about some help? Even a pair of long leather gloves in every fifth overhead bin would allow passengers to handle knife-wielding terrorists. The flight attendants should have access to restraint devices, pepper sprays, etc., and be instructed to hand them out to passengers who want to help and are qualified.[/li][li]An attitude change. The administration’s attitude is, “We’re at war, but you people don’t have to worry about that - your government is in charge. Go about your business, live your lives, buy things, and sleep safe knowing we’ll protect you.” The proper response is, “Hey, it’s your country. The military will go after these terrorists overseas, and the national guard and police will respond to terrorists here. But we can’t be everywhere, and this is a free society. We will NOT restrict your freedom, but you’d damned well start assuming some responsibility for your own defense.” That message should go out most strongly to large corporations, transportation companies, etc. The The Ryder company is in the best position to prevent the misuse of Ryder trucks, not the government. Give them tools, give them tax breaks to guide them in the right direction, and let them do it.[/li][li]Stop freaking coddling everyone. This administration is completely incoherent. One day there’s a vague terror alert, and the next day they’re telling everyone “Don’t worry, be happy”. [/li][/ul]
Damn near everything.
We were the victims of a criminal act, not an international act of war. Our very overreaction lends dignity and importance to a pathetic band of pseudo-religious nutbars. No attempt was made to stem the blinding tide of emotion, indeed, Our Leader appointed himself head cheerleader for same. His performance before Congress was nauseatingly self-indulgent, making those sclerotic old white men stand up, sit down, stand up every time he delivered another action-packed one liner. Bravely, he waved the bloody shirt and the American flag, and delivered a string of platitudes and bloviations, crafted to be free of content and definition. And sang of war, war, war. As if it were a glorious exercise of our intelligence and our will, rather than a toxic distillation of blood, pain and death.
And he loved it, and it showed. We should have been ashamed of him, and we were not. God help us, the self-important little twit thinks he’s Churchill.
This was the first mistake, and all the others flow from it. We should have shown ourselves to be patient and resolute, as befits our position. We should have made it clear that the military option always exists, but we recognize that it must be the last resort. We should have set out a program that engages our allies and reaches out to those who are less than enthusiastic about our hegemony. (You don’t have to love us to know what was done to us is wrong. Hell, even Iran offered assistance. Naturally, with the subtle diplomatic skills that Texans are known for, we wiped our butts on their offer.)
There are situations wherein even the most massive military advantages are of little use. This is one of them. We are like a man attacked by a swarm of bees, flailing at them with a hammer.
We should have shown the world a patient, resolute giant, not a hysterical heavily armed dwarf. Instead, we say “Our victims count. Yours are collateral damage.”
What would I have done differently? Damn near everything.