Before Sept. 11, 2001, terrorism was something that happened elsewhere in the world, to other people, not in or to the United States. While this was not strictly true, it was the general conception of terrorism.
Before Sept. 11, 2001, the main concerns of the nation included things like the dot-com bust and whether or not the right man had wound up in the White House.
Before Sept. 11, 2001, we thought everything was basically worked out, as far as we were concerned. Sure, there were problems in the middle east and with Israel and whatnot, but now that the weight of the Soviet Union was off our shoulders, there would be plenty of time to iron out those little details.
In short, before Sept. 11, 2001, terrorism on American soil was not something that we worried about. It wasn't an urgent matter, by any stretch of the imagination.
As I understand it, the basic criticism Richard Clarke is making is that the Bush administration didn't take terrorism seriously before 9/11/01. But nobody did. It's not like there was an undercurrent of fear about swarthy bearded men beneath the surface of American society that our government was ignoring. To the average uninformed American such as myself, it was literally not an issue.
So, what's his point?
Here's what else I remember. On Sept. 11, 2001, at noon, I was having a conversation with a co-worker. I told him then, "Someone needs to die for this." My opinion has not changed. People need to keep dying until their survivors are no longer a threat to me and mine.
I remember the year before we invaded Iraq. I remember knowing with a certainty bordering on faith that once we started talking about invading Iraq, it was a foregone conclusion. We were going to go, and we were going to win.
I remember all the talk about WMD's. I remember thinking how dumb they were going to look if they pinned the whole reason for going on those WMD's, and then didn't find any. I also remember thinking that the only reason we were emphasizing that aspect in the first place was in an attempt to garner popular support from the rest of the world.
The UN had agreed that Iraq possessing WMD's was a punishable offense. We had direct, irrefutable knowledge that Iraq had had poison gas at an earlier point in its history. The UN's own inspectors could not prove that the gas had been destroyed. Saddam was being deliberately obstructive to those inspections, another violation of the cease-fire. By the UN's own rules, that was enough to justify going in and clearing house.
I also remember that, after 9/11, the US adopted and announced a new policy of preemptively neutralizing not only terrorists and their organizations, but also any and all groups that provided support, protection, or financial backing to those terrorists. That announcement, by the way, specifically encompassed not only Al Qaeda but every other terrorist group in existence.
Saddam Hussein was paying the families of Palestinian man-guided bombs $25,000 each. That is financial backing of terrorism. That's all the justification I needed, personally. His possible possession of WMD's, and potential willingness to sell or give them to people who would use them against the US or its interests, was gravy.
Now, Saddam is out of business, and he no longer pays Palestinians to blow themselves up among the infidels. That is a victory in the War on Terror.
Am I forgetting something?
As far as your logic and conclusions go, I would say that, no, you're not forgetting anything. But I disagree with what seems to me to be your choice of foundation for your logic.
You say:
""Someone needs to die for this." My opinion has not changed. People need to keep dying until their survivors are no longer a threat to me and mine."
What I get from this statement is that you think that might makes Right (note that I'm not saying that IS what you think; I'm saying that's what I'm concluding from your statements). Since plenty of people around the world are obviously proceeding under the same assumptions (the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is just the first to leap to mind), and since some of these people are the ones that are responsible for blowing up the trade center, then one of two conclusions could be reached (as far as I can see; I'm willing to listen to a different approach):
1) The assumption that might=right is correct; sufficient power is a valid justification for any act. The loser is, by definition, in the wrong.
2) Might=right is invalid. There is an deeper level of valid morality than that dictated by expediency. Killing people until one is safe from the survivors seems to me to be a matter of expediency. And, since most terrorism seems to be motivated by the desire to advance a particular agenda, then terrorism, too, falls into the category of 'expediency driven.' In which case, both the terrorists and those who would retaliate are proceeding under an invalid moral system.
That's all for now. I'll be happy to discuss further, if you like. Thanks for allowing responses to your thoughts.
Posted by: chris at April 1, 2004 08:54 AMNo, not might makes right. Might for right. The terrorists and those who support them have proven themselves unworthy of remaining alive. For the protection of the rest of us, those people need to be removed.
I mean, the US could kill pretty much the entire world, or any major portion of it that interests us. In theory, we could have paved the middle east two and a half years ago, and no one could have stopped us.
We didn't. Considering the rage we felt, we showed incredible restraint in not lashing out and nuking anyone we even suspected might have been involved. That would have been "might makes right."
Instead, we're trying to reform the middle east, to use our tremendous power to make better people out of those who oppose us. It just so happens that, thanks to their current mindset, we have to shoot a great many of them first, just to get their attention.
If they refuse to reform, then yes, they all need to die. The very day they stop being a threat to us and all those who previously carried out their threats are captured or dead, we'll stop killing them.
As it is now, they won't stop trying to kill us until we're all dead or Islamic, whether we threaten them or not. That's the difference, and why we're right.
Posted by: David at April 1, 2004 09:15 AM You say "Instead, we're trying to reform the middle east, to use our tremendous power to make better people out of those who oppose us."
Are you saying that *anyone* who opposes us must be reformed? Are we the sole definition of 'right?' And, while we're on the subject, how do you define 'we?' There's a whole lot of different ways of being an American. Are you ready to 'reform' every last person on the planet who objects to your agenda?
I'm going to assume for a moment that your answer to that last question is 'no.' So, if you are only going to reform those who oppose you and are a threat, how do you determine when someone stops being a threat? How do you draw the line?
Typically, people only seek revenge for those within their identity group. If I identify myself as a member of the Smith family, I'll stick up for anyone who's also a Smith. If I see myself as, at core, an American, I'll get quite angry if you blow up a few hundred of my fellow citizens. So, it sounds like you need to make sure you wipe out everyone within a particular group to be safe.
If I'm misunderstanding you, then I apologize and would like to read your clarification. But if we only stop killing when everyone else cringes and acknowledges our supremacy, how does that make us any better than the Nazis?
Sorry, Chris...Godwin's Law, you lose. But thanks for playing!
Posted by: Sekimori at April 5, 2004 10:57 AMPeople can oppose the United States, and lead perfectly happy, healthy lives. Europe has decided it hates us, for example. Fine. As long as they don't actually do anything that endangers us, they can hate us all they want.
I believe I said we're trying to reform "the middle east," not "everyone." I'll thank you not put words in my mouth. I don't know where you had them previously.
As for the definition of "right," it's pretty simple. They want to kill us. That's wrong. We don't want them to kill us. That's right. We also don't want them to kill anyone else, or each other. That's right too.
My "agenda," as you put it, is to be able to go about my life, perhaps visit other countries, meet people, and enjoy exotic cuisine without worrying that some religious fanatic is going to try to kill me to make a political point. Anyone who objects to that, yes, reform them. Until they bleed from the eyes, if necessary.
It is not logically possible to prove a negative. Therefore, I can't be sure when someone stops being a threat. However, as long as certain people continue literally to threaten me, to vow to end my life for the glory of an abstract concept, and to keep setting off explosives in densely populated areas in attempts to kill me, I think it is safe to assume the threat has not passed.
By "me" I mean "us." As in, not "them." "They," in this case, are those muslims who have made it their life's work to claim ownership of the entire world, and thus the universe, at my expense. "We" are everyone who stands in their way.
Ah, the Nazi argument. You lose. Thanks for playing. But I'll say it again, in small words. They don't have to cringe at our superiority. They don't even have to acknowledge our superiority. All they have to do is stop trying to kill us. Kill infidels? Bad. Don't kill infidels? Good. Let them rant and rave. Let them decry us as intellectual and moral deviants. Let them tear us down to raise the morale of their own populaces. Let them stop buying our stuff and stop selling us oil. Fine. Great. More power to them.
But if they so much as point an Exacto knife at me in a threatening manner, they die.
Posted by: David at April 5, 2004 11:22 AM Okay, multiple points for both of you for tagging me on the Nazi crack. You're right - that's not the kind of comment that belongs in a mature debate, and I shot myself in the foot (both feet, really) by using it. I actually did get a laugh, though, out of the Godwin's Law link. The fact that there's a Law regarding using the Nazis in argument made me smile even as I winced; thanks Sekimori.
And for putting words in your mouth - okay, I give. I was not hearing what you were saying, and that's my bad. I should have taken more time to analyze your position, and limit myself to concluding the absolute minimum from what you wrote. Lesson learned.
I guess what I find so maddening is the whole just war debate; it seems so obvious to some people how large scale killing can be so clearly a lesser, preferable evil, and it seems just as obvious to others how any killing is evil, and to be rejected. Period. It's simply not a difference that's amenable to compromise, I suppose, so I shouldn't be surprised to walk away from this one with no opinions changed.
David, I appreciate your hosting the debate and not completely unloading on me in your response. Next time I debate a topic online, I'll remember the lesson: don't argue opinions or beliefs - stick to facts. You can't change a person's beliefs just by arguing with them.
Okay, now that we're all done being defensive, I'd like to ask for one bit of clarification.
" it seems so obvious to some people how large scale killing can be so clearly a lesser, preferable evil, and it seems just as obvious to others how any killing is evil, and to be rejected. Period."
Am I to glean from this statement that you (or, if not you, then those who do oppose the war) believe there is no circumstance under which the killing of others is justified? I'm not denigrating this point of view, I promise. I honestly have never heard that position in the context of current world events.
Is that the anti-war mindset? "Killing is bad?" Is that the source of the conflict? Because I don't disagree with the basic idea. "Killing is bad. End of discussion." That's more problematical.
I'm glad to see this discussion not be reduced to a flame war. Even if you don't drop in to respond again, chris, thanks for stopping by. Civility is all too rare, and should be acknowledged.
Posted by: David at April 5, 2004 03:31 PMCivility shmivility...where's the answer to your questions?? I hate it when they do this then don't stick around to defend/explain their position. Poor form.
Posted by: Sekimori at April 7, 2004 03:50 PM