At Foreign Policy Daniel Byman observes that his students had not been born when the attacks on 9/11 took place and presents a fair backgrounder on the attacks. Here’s his conclusion:
Under current U.S. President Donald Trump, students find it hard to understand the idea that a terrorist attack might bring people together.Under current U.S. President Donald Trump, students find it hard to understand the idea that a terrorist attack might bring people together. After all, Trump used the Orlando attack as an excuse to blast a “dysfunctional immigration system†and an “incompetent administration.†Right-wing terrorist attacks and white supremacist gatherings during his tenure have led him to talk about gun rights and the “very fine people†involved rather than bringing Americans together.
Today’s students also lack a sense of historical perspective. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was an average of more than one airplane hijacking per week globally, and those two decades saw hundreds of bombings in the United States by groups ranging from the Ku Klux Klan to the Weather Underground. Indeed, on U.S. soil, both terrorist incidents and fatalities are down in the post-9/11 era compared with the years before.
I think the post-9/11 sense of national unity is greatly exaggerated. After all, the New York Times was back to publishing anti-Bush editorials by Thanksgiving 2001 and did so regularly for the rest of his presidency.
One thing I find missing from Dr. Byman’s account is that prior to 9/11 we had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. That’s a pretty significant omission given that was the stated grievance that spurred the attacks.
I also think he skips a lot in dismissing the connection between Al Qaeda and DAESH. As I understand it DAESH was a splinter group from Al Qaeda in Iraq that disagreed with the main organization over when the caliphate should be declared.
“I think the post-9/11 sense of national unity is greatly exaggerated.â€
I suppose it depends on what unity means. In any event, I think you are correct. Living in NY metro then and several years after, and traveling nationally frequently, it was more of a tri-state plus PA event soon afterwards. And political unity? Forget it.
That’s not surprising. Today people hardly blink on Pearl Harbor Day or D-Day. That was not the case with my grandparents.
“The events of 9/11 are increasingly a memory, and without education that memory can easily become a caricature. Americans who are not fortunate enough to study at an elite university are particularly susceptible to vague threats being used to justify unnecessary government spending or an administration’s preferred policy, without a recognition of how the dangers facing the country have changed since 2001. Capturing all the nuances surrounding 9/11 is vital, but the proper response today also requires recognizing that terrorism is constantly evolving, and when it strikes again it may not come from an expected or familiar source.”
Wow, there’s some good stuff in this essay but this elitist bullshit makes me question the author’s judgment and conclusions.
I don’t think the understanding is complete without including the 1993 bombing by Ramzi Yousef , the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who planned the 9/11 attacks. Mohammad Atta was known to these people, and the whole group were funded by Bin Laden. Atta’s entry into the country should have raised red flags but at the time the CIA was being grilled by congress for overstepping their investigative reach and they were less than co-operative with the FBI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Yousef
or without mentioning the Gulf War, to which the 1993 bombing and 9/11 were intimately related. Or that Osama bin Laden’s efforts in Afghanistan were funded by the Saudis.
Troops in SA were OBL’s stated impetus true. But there may be more. Regarding the World Trade Center, 1993 was only 18 years after completion so I gotta think they never did like those buildings, and what they represented.