Although I seldom write about events/holidays, sometimes I feel culturally they are so significant that there is no way to avoid looking at their impact. Pearl Harbor had been one of those for an earlier generation of people. 9/11 is for another. The question is what do events like these do to us as a people when we enshrine them? Who do they make us into? I won't go backward into past ones, but I'd like to just look at 9/11 because here comes its tenth anniversary. It's not a holiday yet but it probably will be if some get their way. It's a day media and politicians can use and they all will be. I am swimming against the stream to say what I am going to here as I know how Americans see this.
To begin, yes, it was a horrible tragedy, and you cannot get past that part of it. Most of us know exactly where we were when we heard; and if we had on the television because of the first World Trade Center being hit, we actually watched helplessly and in shock as the second plane plowed into the second tower. We saw the horror of people being trapped in those buildings and unable to get to them to save them, we learned of the rescue teams running in to die with them. We learned what looks like a very strong building can collapse like a pancake if it was not structurally sound, and we didn't know some of them were not. None of us will ever forget it, it became part of the lexicon of our people.
Immediately, by the politicians, it was turned into a cause to use and a cause it remains. The cause wasn't to get the author of the disaster. The cause wasn't about the victims because some people quickly resented the survivors complaining or receiving money and help. The cause wasn't to make sure it never happened again because that's a combination of paying attention, luck and timing whether it happened in the first place [The missed signals of 9/11].
We know there are those who would do it wherever people believe taking innocent human life is a valid sacrifice to greed. Yes, it is greed because it's about attaining power and power is one of the most heady temptations of greed that there is. The murderers who died expect power for themselves on the other side and they expected their side to gain power over here.
So it happened. We went to war over it, and the first war made some degree of sense because we were going after those who had planned the attack. It made sense until at Tora Bora when our men were held back, and we let the author of 9/11 escape. 9/11 was the original tragedy but the tragedies were just beginning for those sent to war, the ones in foreign countries who would feel its impact on their homes and bodies.
We were told it didn't matter why the original murderers had done it. We did not need to look at motivations that led to the attack. For years then our government took the gun and bomb as the solution and we as a people supported that.
A war in Iraq was supposed to be quick and paid for by oil revenues in that country. The connection to 9/11 was never there, but it didn't stop our vice-president from claiming and insinuating it to those who only listen to him. By the time of the invasion of Iraq, our president said, whenever he was asked, that the terrorist leader was irrelevant. He said this while other terrorist attacks linked to that group were happening around the world.
Why didn't our leaders want him or should I say our president at that time want him? Was it because we needed the terrorist leader out there as a symbol? Did our president believe they could get him whenever they wanted? Or did he believe they couldn't and he wanted to distract Americans from the failure? We will NEVER know.
If you want to have a war, symbols are important. "Remember the Maine!" You can insert many other names in the place of Maine. How else can you motivate people to go to war, to in this case ruin their economy over the war and throw their young people into harm's way. It takes a big symbol and to begin with that symbol was a man's face. That was before somebody figured out another symbol to replace it-- democracy for everybody.
So here we are ten years later with a big anniversary to once again be lived and relived by everybody because it's what we do as Americans-- glory in tragedies?
There is little doubt there will be much posturing and politicking today. Oh it'll be along with somber sad faces, while speeches are given, but let's look at where we are ten years later and what not 9/11 but the reaction to it did to our country. We cannot control events and actions from others. We can control our reaction. Our people's reaction to the attacks ended up more catastrophic in the long run than the attacks as it has torn at the very fabric of our country leading us to become a nation at risk of losing our values.
We are still at war. We are still run by a government that has kept up the wars even when the face of one of the terrorist leader is now dead, actually the face of two of them since another face was superimposed over that second war to justify it. Governments used to like to justify wars but do they need to anymore or do Americans just accept whatever the government wants to do without a reason? It's barely mentioned that if we ended both of them tomorrow, we would cut our deficit, and we could start paying down our debt without hurting the poorest among us.
Before 9/11, despite our previous wars (and this country has rarely been out of war somewhere), we justified those wars by their being needed for one main reason. We were fighting over there (doesn't matter where over there was) to avoid fighting here. After 9/11, that argument was gone forever as obviously we can be attacked here and nobody can realistically pretend it cannot happen again, but I still hear the same argument-- we are fighting them over there to keep the homeland safe. Yeah right.
Well we do have the most powerful military in the world. No denying that. It might not stay that way given the way the world changes and China's emergence but for now we can go beat up anybody on the block. We paid a high price for that and are continuing to do so and it's not always appreciated elsewhere but we do have that military might.
Now their role though is complicated as we don't just go to war with rogue nations or to catch terrorists, now we go to pound democracy into other nations, to install leaders we want no matter whether the country would prefer a different regime. (And some of those leaders who we want. Good Lord, what are we thinking with that?) We do this to sovereign nations because a certain bunch don't see it matters so long as they are in power and they maintain that through justifying themselves to themselves if to nobody else.
Do we need those wars to convince ourselves of something else with which we are bombarded-- American Exceptionalism (that wasn't even a word we heard much, if at all, before all of this rah rah stuff began). Oh yeah, we are the best in the world huzzah huzzah and therefore, it's okay whatever we do. Everybody should know we are the very best of the best; and if any politician dares to say any other country is even as good, they can kiss off being elected. We are a people who like being stroked. We don't care if it's true. Just say it.
We don't care if our death rate in babies is among the world's highest-- matching some Third World countries. It's not about reality for us. It's about what we say. We don't care that nearly 50% of our young people cannot get jobs unless they join the military (where those wars come in handy). We don't care if other Americans fear catastrophic illness not just for the debility and pain but for the loss of their homes and everything they own. No, that's not what matters to us exceptional types. We just want the yellow ribbons, flag pins, patriotic songs, rah rah speeches, and I guess going to war somewhere because by now we don't have to have a reason. So, we borrow the money and take away yet more public services, let more infrastructure crumble. We support the world's best military, mercenaries for the world want us or not, and we are paying for it by sacrificing our young people, our bridges, our schools, our future generations' hope for a future.
Did the author of 9/11 win? You tell me. With the help of Cheney and Bush, we turned our whole ability to function as a government around. Our people became so frightened of another attack that we let the government tell us what to do and we let that include taking away some of our rights under the Bill of Rights. Cowards that we are. Willing that we are to let someone else be tortured, all of it was done to keep us safe. We gave up ethics when we accepted torture and rendition with secret prisons. We gave up personal autonomy and the right to not be spied upon without cause. The generations who came before us must be so proud of what we have accomplished.
Before 9/11, we were on a path to show that government worked, and we were not only providing jobs to our citizens but also services. We were doing that and beginning to pay down past debts. Somebody benefited from 9/11, somebody grew rich from it, got satisfaction from it, proved government can't ever do anything right (that viewpoint was heavily pushed by Reagan), but it hasn't helped the average American citizen.
And if I hear that word exceptionalism again, I am turning off whatever TV show or politician that/who used it. Right then and there, whoever it is, rightie or leftie, it's going off. I could tell them a little secret but they won't listen. You don't need to tell people you are exceptional if you really are. They will know it.
I won't look at one single memorial event or the reliving of it that is on television now and has been the last week. I am very sorry for those who died so horribly as I am for their families and the tragic loss they suffered that day. The cost has been high for our people going in many directions; and that cost today came from our reaction to what happened more than anything else. As a nation, we let our leaders scare us into losing track of our values. I don't know if I have faith that we learned anything from that reaction.
I think that the principal lesson of the aftermath of 9/11 is the futility of revenge. No matter how right it seems at the time, it invariably bites you in the butt in the end. The kids' movie "War Games" is a classic for teaching that.
ReplyDeleteIt is sometimes hard for those of us who have been around for awhile to remain positive about humankind's future, we've seen too much bad stuff to not be cynical. Before it was hijacked by cynical neocon politicians, there was a real and positive coming-together of people around the globe as a result of 9/11, one of my indelible memories is of Yasser Arafat apparently on the verge of tears speaking out on the horror of 9/11.
Briefly we saw humanity being humane.
thank you so much for your words.....I have been feeling exactly the same.(for many yrs)
ReplyDeleteI have always felt like the politicians used the terrorists to
terrorize us. The memory of my neighbors desperately buying duct tape and plastic is indelible.....
missy from the bayou
What 911 taught me is that hate is alive in the world. However, love is as well. Religious fanaticism, of any stripe, is dangerous, despicable and deplorable. How should we, as civilized human beings react in the face of terrorism. Can we really turn the other cheek ? War is a futile pursuit, because everyone loses. We lose lives as well as our humanity. War breeds cynicism and doubt and hate. Indeed, blessed are the peacemakers.
ReplyDeleteWell done Rain.
ReplyDeleteRain--Check out today's "Zits" comic strip.
ReplyDeleteCop Car
Attacking Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan was not just revenge, it was seeking justice. If somebody murdered your parents or your children and while the police were going after the killers, they shot one of the cops. Should the cops then just give up and go home and let your families killers go free?
ReplyDeleteArafat was on the verge of tears because his investments in the US that he had made with money stolen from the Palestinian people had tanked after 9/11 with the rest of the economy.
ingineer, you missed the whole point of this piece... which is rare for you but I am guessing you just don't like facing what righties did using 9/11.
ReplyDeleteAND some did want to attack Afghanistan for revenge. The point is it didn't get the guys who did it and attacking Iraq was what cost us our economy which had zero to do with 9/11. Basically had they wanted bin Laden, they could have had him at Tora Bora according to our own military guys. You explain why they backed off supposedly to let the tribal leaders get him when they knew many of those tribal leaders were allied with him.
As for Arafat, you have no idea why he was on the verge of tears. Muslims also died on 9/11.
The issue here though was learn how to react better or find yourself destroying yourself. A lot praised Bush for what he did and said how bad it'd have been if Gore had been president. Well a leftie president cared enough to put the pressure on to get bin Laden; so maybe Gore actually would have given the orders to get him and then not had an Iraq war to follow. We didn't need to go to war to get Hussein. Nor did we need to to get the people who went after us on 9/11. Ask the Israelis about how you can target who you want, not blow up a whole country in doing it.
Rain, you really should be a professional political commentator. You are excellent at presenting your points and building a rationale. I certainly agree with a lot of what you write, but Paul's comment matches how I feel best.
ReplyDeleteRain you are correct. My comment was not in response to your post, but to the first comment.
ReplyDeleteYes Muslims were murdered on 9/11 along with people from over 80 nations. That is why these crackpot Muslims that only understand violence and death need to be dealt with by violence and death. They will only concede to overwhelming force.
Wow, that sounds surprisingly like revenge talk, ingineer ;)
ReplyDeleteWhat has always mystified me about Bush and perhaps you can explain it. The desire to get the ones behind 9/11 is rather like when a crime is committed and we want to get the perpetrator. Suddenly Bush said he lost interest in getting bin Laden. What was that all about? The pressure to actually get him didn't return until Obama made it a priority for the military. It would seem to me if this was a matter of justice, it would have always been a priority and Bush would have never said what he did as though he was tired of talking about him...
ReplyDeleteCareful, Rain... certain factions in this country would look at your lack of flag-waving as "unpatriotic".
ReplyDeleteEven more unpatriotic is intellectual introspection about why these people attacked us; what was their motive. If you believe Bush it was because "they hate our freedom".
Others think it was purely religiously motivated, Islam against the West.
But one only needs to look at our history; the placing of our puppet the Shaw of Iran, as an example. Western presence in the Arabian peninsula for the pure purpose of securing our own self interest.
The men who few those planes into our symbols of America were educated and literate, but they saw their own land and leaders as being corrupt and influenced by Western and European interests. I'm not saying they were justified in doing what they did, but I am saying there is a deeper explanation that we ignore at our peril.
Thank you for those historic notes, Robert. Americans really need to look at the whole picture but that's not particularly popular either...
ReplyDeleteYep, Robert our system was so corrupt that we allowed them to come here on student visas where many of them spent thousands of dollars at strip clubs and bars.
ReplyDeleteTheir leaders are hypocritical hate mongers bent on their own power. Mullah Omar preached the virtues of poverty yet had 24 karat gold faucets on the sinks in his palace.
They attacked our financial and political centers, because they are at war with us. Some of the hijackers may have been educated but they were duped into being patsies.
We did not put the Shah into power. The Soviets and the British forced his father out and allowed him to take over. Iran had been a monarchy for 2500 years and he continued that. Again not our fault, we were only around for 170 years when he took over.
What the Shah did do was try to modernize the country and bring it into the 20th century. He also, God forbid, allowed women to vote. The fanatical Muslims that you love so much that took over the country took them back in history at least 100 years and have crushed popular uprisings with thuggery and torture.
Robert never said he loved fanatical Muslims, ingineer.
ReplyDeleteAnd you forgot to mention the people the Shah tortured. A lot of educated Iraqis wanted him gone, but they had no clue what freedoms they would lose when a religious fundamentalist took absolute power. Listen to that ilk there and here (ours call themselves Christians) and it's obvious religious fundamentalists, who don't believe in science or logic, and do believe their god can fix anything, are the ones who do the damage to any people where they gain power. Something for Republicans to consider when they vote in their next primary. It's not about being religious. It's about fundamentalism and when you hear them talk it's not hard to recognize one whatever religion they claim they follow.
Bin Laden didn't like a lot of things about us and one in particular was our military base in Saudi Arabia where there is Mecca their holiest city. Fundamentalism worries about such things and can use them to gain power with followers-- and religions are about following.
There is blame on both sides Rain...Our actions produce reactions until things get out of control...Force is not the answer.We cannot remake the world in our image. Sad to say - evil acts have been committed on both sides. We cannot claim the moral high ground here to explain our own deeds.
ReplyDeleteFunny how Bin Laden did not like the US bases in Saudi Arabia, but those bases protected the Kingdom and the flow of oil, which is how he got his money to finance his Jihad. I wonder how he would have felt if we did nothing to protect Kuwait and the secular leader Sadam Hussein would have invaded Saudi Arabia next.
ReplyDeleteHe needed a symbol. Symbols do not have to make sense. Bin Laden's face made no sense for attacking Iraq either. Both sides use them and it's despicable as they hurt the weakest among us. What humans need to do is learn to recognize them and not let them manipulate us. It's not what we too often do. I can think of a lot of them after 9/11 like stomping the Dixie Chicks career along with their CDs into the ground because they dared to say they disagreed with Bush's policies and his excuse for a war. Symbols work which is too bad. It seems to me that the majority of mankind has learned nothing from the past failures from letting such things work.
ReplyDeleteAnd Paul, I agree with what you said. I don't know how we fix it. If more people had empathy for others, thought of walking a mile in their shoes, it might be a start.
ReplyDeleteI've thought about the idea of Hussein invading Saudi Arabia next and there is no evidence for it. That's the old domino theory that got us not only into Vietnam but kept us there for so many bloody years. We know that Hussein tested out our reaction if he should invade Kuwait and our ambassador blew what he said or else somebody wanted that invasion. After that though Hussein wasn't really capable of invading anybody else as the embargo was basically ruining his country economically. There was NO justification for invading Iraq. Righties won't give up on it being a necessary war. Bush the first pretty well established a sensible policy when he didn't want to invade and hold Iraq and what Powell said about how if you break it you own it. Well we still own it and for what gain to our people or for that matter the Iraqi people. There were other ways to go forth but a bloody war that cost so much was what Cheney and Bush wanted-- men who weren't willing to fight their own wars. Chicken hawks is what people who are afraid to go to war themselves but want to send others. Very brave-- when hiding behind someone else!
ReplyDeleteSome thoughts: There was no way Hussein could take on Saudi Arabia. His rag-tag antiquated army could barely make a dent in the ten year war with Iran. And engineer, your point about the Shah's modernization was correct, I was in Iran during that period and it was evident. However, your ranting at legitimate critiques as 'fanatical Muslims.' is specious and colors your legitimate concerns and ideas with ignorant ideology.
ReplyDeleteSo you are saying the Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers in the founding of the Islamic Republic of Iran were not fanatical Muslims?
ReplyDeleteKhomeni was elected by the people of Iran. That many of them had no idea what would follow doesn't make him invalid as their leader. If you haven't, you might give 'Reading Lolita in Tehran' a chance. It's about some of the people there who got a surprise with the rigidity and fundamentalist viciousness that followed. If that kind of power was possible here in this country, you'd see the same things from right wing Christian extremists. The issue with Iran and Iraq was-- did we have a right to tell another nation, a sovereign nation, that they cannot elect such a person? Do they have a right to tell us that we should not have elected Bush who has done more damage to our country than Khomeni certainly was capable of doing or ever did. He was not a terrorist. He was an extreme fundamentalist. He damaged the people in his nation but what specifically did he do to you and how does that justify what the right wing has done and would still do in terms of wars elsewhere to install their own idea of a leader?
ReplyDeleteThe point MandT was making was that Robert wasn't saying he wanted such a leader for our country. Sometimes right wing people act as though any disagreement with them is virtually treason and lately a desire to turn the country over to Muslim extremists (when we know some righties want to turn it over to Christian extremists). I've certainly been accused of that enough to not appreciate hearing it. Best to stick to the issues and not judge someone else to be unpatriotic for disagreeing with all that our country does. I mean how many of you now agree with what Obama does? Okay to criticize him as many do and not when it was a right wing president and his actions? Or in the case of much of what we did in supporting foul dictatorships even Democrats were doing it. If you read anything about our undercover wars, it hardly leaves the US looking angelic and too often they supported the wrong people as in bin Laden during the Soviet war in Afghanistan...
"So you are saying the Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers in the founding of the Islamic Republic of Iran were not fanatical Muslims?' No, I was saying there were significant modernization advances in Iran under the Shah. Your bait and switch merely strengthens my supposition that you are more guided by passionate ideology than critical reasoning, which by the way is not a classic conservative position, but one more in keeping with the very radicalism you so clearly denounce.
ReplyDeleteRain et al--Ooooh, I hate radicals of all religions!
ReplyDeleteRadical Atheist
(Well...actually...Cop Car)