In a piece at the Atlantic author Garrett M. Graff makes the argument that following the attacks on September 11 the U. S. did almost everything wrong. Here’s the kernel of his piece:
As we approach the 20th anniversary of 9/11 on Saturday, I cannot escape this sad conclusion: The United States—as both a government and a nation—got nearly everything about our response wrong, on the big issues and the little ones. The GWOT yielded two crucial triumphs: The core al-Qaeda group never again attacked the American homeland, and bin Laden, its leader, was hunted down and killed in a stunningly successful secret mission a decade after the attacks. But the U.S. defined its goals far more expansively, and by almost any other measure, the War on Terror has weakened the nation—leaving Americans more afraid, less free, more morally compromised, and more alone in the world. A day that initially created an unparalleled sense of unity among Americans has become the backdrop for ever-widening political polarization.
The things we got wrong which he identifies are:
- As a society, we succumbed to fear.
- We chose the wrong way to seek justice.
- At home, we reorganized the government the wrong way.
- Abroad, we squandered the world’s goodwill.
- We picked the wrong enemies.
I’m not entirely in agreement with everything on his list but I think he has a point.
I was not frightened on 9/11; I was sad because I saw pretty clearly what was going to happen. That may explain why I have opposed practically everything we have done in the aftermath.
Both bin Laden and the Taliban denied any involvement in the attack on the Towers. Perhaps they lied, but the US intelligence agencies have no credibility whatsoever.
The Unz Review has several articles claiming the Mossad did it. That seems unlikely, but the Mossad has a long sordid history of violent crimes, and there is the precedent of the USS Liberty.
The claim that the Towers were brought down by demolition charges is absurd in the extreme. Whoever flew the planes did it. The collapse sequence is totally explainable by the impact of the planes and their fuel loads. And there is film.
The ongoing covid panic shows just how easily people can be frightened and driven to absurdities. I was conned into supporting both the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. By the time Libya, Syria, and Yemen came around, I was immunized against the US Ruling Class. Too soon old; too late smart.
Sounds like the war on covid…………
Added layers of bureaucracy is the worst of it.
Miles and miles of chain link razor wire and concrete barriers were sold, and the social security office still has an armed guard on duty to compel the seniors to take a number and stay off their phones. Will that ever change?
Yes, we badly overreacted, that too was a failure of intelligence. Al Qeida seemed to loom as as all knowing and in knowable all at once.
They could do anything, be anywhere.
No reaction seemed like overreach.
“Both bin Laden and the Taliban denied any involvement in the attack on the Towers. Perhaps they lied, but the US intelligence agencies have no credibility whatsoever.”
Bin Laden took direct credit in at least two videos. Despite this, the Taliban have always denied AQ had anything to do with 9/11, and still maintain that stance today.
Dave, I disagree with your list somewhat. I think going into Afghanistan was not only inevitable but also necessary.
But for too long I was wedded to the idea that we had an obligation to leave Afghanistan in a better place than we found it, that we needed to leave with a semi-stable government in place, even though I understood the fundamental nature of Afghanistan’s fragmented society. I don’t remember exactly when my view changed on this, but it was before the Obama administration came around, as I knew that Obama’s desire for a “surge” in Afghanistan would fail.
Most of the rest of your list I agree with however.
My view, expressed here any number of times, is that we needed to respond to the attacks on 9/11 forcibly enough that it would be seen as a response but that we should never have invaded. That was a tactical and strategic error.
As I’ve said occasionally I think the reason that we invaded was two-fold: 1) President Bush had the mistaken view that everyone longs for liberal democracy; and 2) he couldn’t bring himself to respond as forcefully as would have been necessary without invading (too much collateral damage).
IMHO, GW Bush wanted to be a war president.
As evidence, putting on the flight jacket and landing on the carrier with “Mission Accomplished “ sign as backdrop.
Obama as well donning a leather bomber jacket to simply watch video of the OBL raid said that he wanted to be seen as a military tough.
I’d like to think that I could resist that temptation when so many lives are at stake on both sides.
And I guess I think that both men should have been called on that aggrandizement by the media and lawmakers.
Doesnt look like a bomber jacket. Says it was his golfing jacket.
https://www.history.com/news/bin-laden-raid-situation-room-photo
Steve
“Bomber jacket”
No, not to me either, but that’s what they called it.
https://www.gq.com/story/barack-obama-bomber-jacket
Uhh, that is what he wore to a basketball game after leaving office.
Steve
Grey the mind-reader knows exactly why Obama wore a certain jacket.
Any debate about the supposed greater meaning of clothing choices for some historical event is just dumb.
A talent on loan from God.