Browse News+Opinion
Browse Calendar+Scene
Browse Arts+Movies
Browse Food+Drink
Browse Music+Clubs
Friday, September 10, 2010
Did the Terrorists Win on 9/11?
Posted by Jack Hunter on Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:47 AM
As we approach the ninth anniversary of 9/11, everyone is fixated on some idiot who plans to burn the Koran. Many are pleading with him not to do it, yet he still insists. If he doesn’t do it, the “terrorists win,” you see. But the terrorists have already won. That this man even wants to burn the Koran is actually part of that triumph, and that we are all talking about it is simply the latest chapter in their victory.
Many believe America changed after 9/11. It did. A ragtag band of terrorists successfully drew the most powerful military in the world into countries that barely had militaries, where we invented or deepened conflicts that should have never been conflicts, the benefit of which went mostly to al-Qaeda, as that outfit now possesses the greatest recruitment tool imaginable—the flailing foreign policy of a belligerent American empire. If we’re honest, since day one, the War on Terror has actually been a war for it—with the decade-long occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq creating a net result of record high anti-American sentiment, far worse than it was before 9/11—which is the reason there even was a 9/11. The irony is as thick as it is tragic. Today, this president show no signs or intention of wanting to correct, or simply stop making, the mistakes of the last one, and radical Islamists and neoconservatives alike continue to salivate over the possibility of new conflicts.
And this is just overseas. Here at home,19 hijackers scared a nation of 300 million people into supporting not only endless and fruitless wars, but security measures and government expansion without precedent in their size, expense, and absurdity. The 9/11 terrorists wanted to induce fear, and they did—beyond their wildest dreams. Writes CNN’s Fareed Zakaria for Newsweek:
I do not minimize Al Qaeda’s intentions, which are barbaric. I question its capabilities. In every recent conflict, the United States has been right about the evil intentions of its adversaries but massively exaggerated their strength. In the 1980s, we thought the Soviet Union was expanding its power and influence when it was on the verge of economic and political bankruptcy. In the 1990s, we were certain that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear arsenal. In fact, his factories could barely make soap… . Nine years after 9/11, can anyone doubt that Al Qaeda is simply not that deadly a threat? Since that gruesome day in 2001, once governments everywhere began serious countermeasures, Osama bin Laden’s terror network has been unable to launch a single major attack on high-value targets in the United States and Europe. While it has inspired a few much smaller attacks by local jihadis, it has been unable to execute a single one itself. Today, Al Qaeda’s best hope is to find a troubled young man who has been radicalized over the Internet, and teach him to stuff his underwear with explosives.
Author Bruce Fein has made the case that if the United States took the troop-to-enemy ratio currently in the Middle East and applied it to World War II, America would have stationed three billion soldiers in Europe alone, ten times the size of the current U.S. population. Fein also points out that even though there are about 14,000 murders annually in the U.S., the very thought of an increased police state to address this is anathema to most Americans—yet there is a bipartisan consensus on the need for a national-security state, massively overblown to address a massively exaggerated threat. Writes Zakaria:
Since September 11, 2001, the U.S. government has created or reconfigured at least 263 organizations to tackle some aspect of the war on terror. The amount of money spent on intelligence has risen by 250 percent, to $75 billion (and that’s the public number, which is a gross underestimate). That’s more than the rest of the world spends put together. Thirty-three new building complexes have been built for intelligence bureaucracies alone, occupying 17 million square feet-the equivalent of 22 U.S. Capitols or three Pentagons. Five miles southeast of the White House, the largest government site in 50 years is being built-at a cost of $3.4 billion-to house the largest bureaucracy after the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs: the Department of Homeland Security, which has a workforce of 230,000 people.
This is insane, and yet to say so is the quickest way to prove your own insanity. Defenders of the last president love to claim that “Bush kept us safe.” No, he kept us stupid.
Comments (8)
Showing 1-8 of 8
Bush kept us safe? Last I heard the 9/11 attacks came on his watch.
Needless wars against the mostly innocent have left us mostly bankrupt, which has weakened us more than any non-nuclear terrorist attack ever could.
First, it was them communists are gonna get us unless we expand government and the military.
Then, it was drugs are gonna get us unless we expand government and restrict individual rights.
This time, the terrorists are gonna get us unless we expand government, the military, and restrict individual rights.
Well the commies didn't get us, they never could have short of an all out nuclear attack, which would have resulted in the annihilation of both sides.
The drugs didn't finish us off, the drug laws did far more damage.
The terrorists won't finish us off either.
But the huge debt incurred from overeacting to these problems might.
At least, during the Vietnam war, a 10% surtax was added to keep us out of debt.
Instead, the Bush administration and the Republican congress gave out tax cuts for the well off and ran their needless war on borrowed money.
Yeah, Obama has so far borrowed even more money, but the question there is was it worth it if this borrowing averted a major depression?
If huge amounts of money must be borrowed I would much rather see it used to help our financial situation than to blow up and then rebuild some country that never did us any harm.
like
dislike
Excellent column, Jack.
You are correct in pointing out that most Americans supported immediate and decisive action in responding to the attacks of 9/11.
It is also true that Americans have grown tired of wars-in-perpetuity after the debacle that was Vietnam.
There are a number of theories about why the last two administrations have pursued almost identical policies in the "war on terror", and I am beginning to believe those "conspiracy theorists" who claim that it's really about setting up the military and governmental structures necessary to implement some sort of "fundamental change".
"Homeland Security" now has the personnel and computer networks necessary to monitor vast amounts of foreign communications. Does anyone think those systems couldn't be "repurposed" for use against American citizens, in pursuit of homegrown "insurgents"?
DOD now has a huge fleet of surveillance drones operating around the globe to gather signals intelligence and conduct multi-spectral analysis of topography, buildings and movements of the occupants within. Some of those assets are now patrolling our southern borders. Does anyone think those drones couldn't be "repurposed" for domestic law enforcement applications?
The FCC now has a "diversity czar" in the person of Mark Lloyd, who thinks there is too much information on the internet, and that the Feds should have some sort of "controls" in place to prevent "harmful, inaccurate" information from being disseminated. The FCC is now debating whether we might need some sort of internet "kill switch" to protect us from a cyber attack. Wouldn't that be handy? I wonder who will have access to the switch? Lloyd is on record saying that he thinks Hugo Chavez' clampdown on Venezuela's privately held media outlets was a good thing, and a model we should look at. Does anyone think that "controlling" the media and the internet is a little like curtailing or eliminating free speech?
We now have a health care law that permits IRS agents to delve into the personal financial records of all citizens, without warning or a warrant, all under the auspices of ensuring an individuals compliance with Obamacare. Does anyone think that wealth confiscation and property seizure begins with figuring out who has what?
We now have federally funded Homeland Security programs training local and state law enforcement organizations to deal with "homegrown" terrorists. One of their strategies involves infiltrating "anti government" groups in order to identify members, thwart their plans and discourage others from assembling new groups. Does anyone think that Tea Parties could find themselves labeled as "anti government extremists"?
Now, if you wanted to "fundamentally transform" the United States, how would you go about it? You can't just flip a switch and "transform". No one will go along with transforming a system which is working perfectly well, so the existing system must first be "broken". When the existing system collapses, there must be something waiting to capture and take control of the remnants. How do you do that?
Well, you might try to bankrupt the country through profligate spending, while at the same time expanding the dependency class to the point that when the final financial catastrophe occurs, over half the population is dependent, to varying degrees, on government for their day to day needs. Of course, certain segments of the population might not go along with this "fundamental transformation", so it is important to have the necessary "structures" in place to deal with homegrown insurgents. Those structures would have to be in place before the first domino falls, so that the "right" people are able to retain and maintain control over the populace during the initial phases of this fundamental transformation.
In short, control peoples freedoms to speak, gather, and engage in commerce. Control access to information with control of the media. Use the threat of confiscation of personal assets to control the timid, and use regulatory and law enforcement structures to roll up the "radical" dissenters.
So, why does Obama continue with the policies of Bush?
Could it be about building the "structure"?
And if it is about "fundamental transformation", what are we going to transform into, and more importantly, why does it require so much government power and control?
one thing is for sure,after 5 attacks on the U.S. under the Clinton admin.we damn sure wasn't safe.Yemen offered bin-laden to the U.S. and Clinton refused even after having the intelligence that he had radicals working in America and knew about the plan for the "big one". we are not fighting an army who is like any other.these people don't care about themselves or anyone else.it is an ideology based on a book that satan himself wrote.the qu'ran is nothing but a book explaining many different ways to gaurantee yourself a place in hell.how many mothers would strap a bomb to their kids back and tell them to go out an murder innocent people? I can tell you that there are many in the muslim. world.
these people are rabid animals.they should dealt with as such.peace is not their intentions,world domination is their intention. I know that this rag of a paper won't print this because they have deleted many of my posts.WHY?? well,its because they are obviously LIBERALS in the "Blame America first" crowd.
"I know that this rag of a paper won't print this because they have deleted many of my posts.WHY?? well,its because they are obviously LIBERALS in the "Blame America first" crowd."
Or, you know, it could be because you are barely coherent, raving lunatic.
Totally a toss-up, though.
Mat,
We don't often agree on politics, but I suspect we would laugh at the same jokes..........
Good one.
; )
- Author William G. Lord is a cold warrior for Christ7 comments
- Lata's Ordinary Oyster Hall revealed5 comments
- The same-sex marriage debate is a distraction48 comments
- Do conservatives want Obama to throw citizens in jail without trial?2 comments
- Five tips for surviving Spoleto Festival5 comments
- Truth & Salvage Co. sift through 50 songs to make the perfect record1 comment
-
Charlie Brown Seafood
Garlic crabs we're delicious. Wish it was a small restaurant where you could sit and… -Danielle Ashe England
-
Little Tokyo
ITADAKMASU = Let's eat! -Christopher Bernique
-
Brittlebank Park
Tehn maybe you should go back to New York. -Chrystal McConnell
-
Diamonds North
There is nothing worse than a bitter fired employee. I work at a plant near… -boeingguy51
-
Pearlz
Fantastic service!
We visited on a busy Friday night and the restaurant was… -twa318
-
The War on Women enters its Creed years thanks to Nikki Haley and Pinata-Gate
-
Do conservatives want Obama to throw citizens in jail without trial?
A Permanent Police State
-
50 Shades of Grey's most notorious scene as read by Stephen Hawking
No strings attached
-
Is S.C. State University's board of trustees really so bad?
A Matter of Degrees
-
Author William G. Lord is a cold warrior for Christ
The thinking Baptist's Glenn Beck sees socialism as a pervasive enemy of the church
