Sept. 11th attacks were criminal, but not an act of war
Sept. 11, 2001 was a crime, not an act of war. Four women from New Jersey, whose spouses had been killed in the Twin Towers, forced an investigation. Those in power fought the concept, and then stacked the commission so that the toughest questions would not be asked.
The nation of Afghanistan was invaded and occupied. We were told to go shopping. The nation of Iraq was invaded and occupied. We were told that weapons of mass destruction were everywhere. Millions of people have been killed, maimed, displaced, and negatively effected by a decision to use violence vs. the rule of law.
I am a father, a retired businessperson and a Vietnam veteran. On this 10th anniversary of the squandering of an opportunity to set a world example for non-violent conflict resolution, I recommend that you research 9/11 and then have dialogue on the options that could have been chosen.
Arnold Stieber
Grass Lake
Comments
grye
Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 5:26 p.m.
Here's my 2 cents. Afganastan was justified to go after a group of people that organized an attack within this country. The group, not country, had released statements in the past calling for attacks and the elimination of our country. War is defined as a conflict carried on by force between nations or groups within a nation. The use of the military to diminish al-qaeda and capture / kill Bin Laden was no different than the police attempting to disband a gang. It only happened on a much bigger scale without regard to innocent casualties. You want to call it a war? It is your right. And in most ways it resembled a war except for the lack of a congressional vote declaring war. Iraq was unjustified, even though the outcome removed a poor excuse for a human being. But what has not been contemplated is why all the hate towards the United States by many individuals in the Middle East? Some say they hate our freedoms. That is a farce. If anyone has ever talked with someone from a Middle Eastern country they would understand. The United States has propped up many governments that have been ruled by mean and viscious individuals. Yet in the name of cheap oil, and for no other reason, we look the other way when people are treated inhumane. In these cases we have not set an example to which we espouse and demand of other countries. This 2 faced policy creates a dislike from those abused by those we choose to support. And then we wonder why they hate us. There are times this country needs to use force to overcome bad and horrible things. However we need to lead by example, not by force. That is a value that will earn respect.
Tru2Blu76
Tue, Sep 20, 2011 : 7:42 a.m.
Oops! We're a little late (10 YEARS) for that one. Besides: it's an erroneous claim. The U.S. - first - asked the Taliban to cooperate and hand over bin Laden. The Taliban replied with defiance and hostility (in keeping with their "traditional" crazed savagery). The U.S. replied with a warning: give us bin Laden or we will come and get him - and YOU. So began the completely appropriate (but poorly conceived) war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. I do not believe that being a Viet Nam (or any other war) vet is qualification to comment on global strategic initiatives conducted by the United States. We have a Viet Nam vet in the family too: he's crazy as a bedbug and has an IQ of about 90. (Just being factual, he's still "family.") "we are hated in that part of the world" -- nonsense. Geez, even if it's true, that's no reason to quit fighting guerrilla terrorists there and everywhere. Our forces have not killed a SINGLE innocent person over there: the Taliban and what's left of Al Qaeda use their own population as human shields: so all those deaths are caused by enemy action. Sending our loved ones... etc. We aren't sending "loved ones" - we are sending brave, well trained, well equipped volunteer soldiers "over there" where those "terrible regimes" are even now in the process of being toppled by their own people. Get a grip -please!
swcornell
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 2:52 p.m.
I think we should be careful about declaring this an Act-of-War. Not all crimes committed by foreigners are Acts-of-War. I would think that Acts-of-War could only be carried off by another sitting government. Since Osamma bin Ladden, who most likely planned this was found living in secret exile, was not part of a sitting government, It as just a crime. A really huge crime though! I also doubt their intent was to go to war with the U.S. and take over our government.
Joe Kidd
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 5:44 p.m.
I think it is not accurate to say that OBL was living in secret exile. One thing we know is that corruption runs rampant in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other countries. With the fall of the Soviet Union, and the economic connection with China, the chances of a traditional style war is much less likely than ever before. Therefore, any collection of people who would like to make the US suffer cannot openly connect with an existing country. The best they can hope for is some unofficial support. Thus I believe that the concept of "act of war" needs to be adjusted to match the global conditions. Had 9/11 been done by Americans, the act looks more like a mass murder. But from foreigners? I think that at least borders on an act of war when it reaches that level of casualties. Think of act and intent. What is the intent of 9/11? No personal gain for the suicide bombers.
C. S. Gass
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 8:46 a.m.
While I agree that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have gone on too long, that an international version of whack a mole is more called for, I do still think that we did the right thing by invading these countries. The plot was fomented in Afghanistan. They have no effective central government but terror groups hide in the chaos of anarchy, just like in sub Saharan Africa. Iraq's government should have been removed after Desert Storm. Hussein was on parole and he got flopped. WMD's or not, his behavior toward his own people was atrocious. And if he didn't have WMD's, how did over 5000 Kurds end up gassed? Show me your conspiracy theory where we manufactured that. Sure, 9/11 was a crime, a crime against humanity, like all war. And the response to this crime was just as necessary.
Olan Owen Barnes
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 4:37 a.m.
I disagree completely as well as many others I am sure. Too many people want to criminalize acts of war and you do not have to be a nation state to declare war as a protected group within a nation can declare war on us and we can and did retaliate.
Mick52
Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 10:08 p.m.
Well Ed, I would agree, I think war is different now and will be for a long time. Like any law it can be modified.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Tue, Sep 20, 2011 : 11:10 a.m.
Joe, The legal and military definition of war has not changed, which are the only places that matter. I can call my dispute with my neighbor over his dog that poops in my yard a "war". Doesn't mean that it is one. And, until one has read Clausewitz regarding the purpose of war, one is lost when throwing the term around thoughtlessly.
Basic Bob
Tue, Sep 20, 2011 : 2:13 a.m.
Timothy McVeigh might have "declared" a war against the US federal government, but as an individual he simply commit a crime. What bin Laden and his followers did is not all that different, except in scale.
Joe Kidd
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 5:36 p.m.
I suggest ERMG, that you consider the world changes and definitions may change with it.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 2:06 p.m.
I suggest you look up the definition of "war," both in legal terms as well and in military terms. For the latter, take into account Karl von Clausewitz's point of view about the purpose of war. This ain't that. GN&GL
Roadman
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 4:35 a.m.
The Iraq war was contrived and pretexual. Al Qaeda's supposed link to Saddam Hussein and 9/11 was one of the "triggers" that started the conflict as was the weapons of mass destruction excuse. In May of 1991, Pres. George H.W. Bush directed the Central Intelligence Agency to create an overt and covert operations apparatus against Saddam Hussein to destabilize his governnment. The Iraqi National Congress, composed mainly of Shiite Iraqi exiles and Kurds received hundreds of millions of dollars in aid over a period of 12 years. Those groups passed along "intelligence" that attempted to justify American military intervention (e.g. the infamous "Curveball") that most analysts considered faulty but which the Pentagon and Congress embraced as it provided "proof" of outlawed "weapons of mass destruction". In the end the Bush Administration and Congress got the war they wanted and many of the recipients of U.S. Govt. assistance in the Iraqi resistance turned out to be corrrupt and unreliable leaders when placed in power by the U.S. For the American people the painful lessons of Vietnam were relived as thousands of U.S. servicemen died in a drawn-out conflict that should have never occurred.
Mick52
Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 10:05 p.m.
When Saddam Hussein was caught and interviewed he admitted he wanted Iran to think he had WMDs and the best way to get them to believe that was to make the US think he had them. He said he never thought the US would attack again. So apparently Saddam was in the 60 Mins curveball, I cannot blame the govt from Iraq2. So it was bad info, are we supposed to make them promise they aren't lying? Invading Iraq is far better then not. Now its up to them, but leaving it as was-losing situation.
Roadman
Tue, Sep 20, 2011 : 12:40 a.m.
The CIA operation was formed post-Gulf War and the Iraqi National Congress was the creation of the U.S government. See the Wikipedia entry on Iraqi National Congress to explain its origin and history as well as its funding. "Curveball" was exposed on a 60 Minutes episode as a source of misinformation that facilitated the U.S. decision to invade Iraq. The Iraqi exile groups had every reason to want to see an invasion and told the U.S. government what they needed and wanted to hear to justify an invasion.
Joe Kidd
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 5:35 p.m.
You have some facts to support your second paragraph? Did the CIA operation that President Bush put in place create the invasion of Kuwait which lead to the first Iraq war? Your post makes no sense.
bunnyabbot
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 4:11 a.m.
they may not have been a country but the declared war on the US all the same (in their OWN words). A plane full of fuel is a missle/bomb. The intent was to take down and cause mass casualities and to cause havoc on our society (which can be argued as having happened thanks to parts of the economy dipping/domino effect through the years after 9/11) the view point of the writer is naive, a view point that is shared by many other naive people.
G. Orwell
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 2:48 a.m.
"Sept. 11th Attacks were Criminal," I agree but the real question is, who are the criminals? It certainly wasn't Osama and 19 amateurs acting by themselves. There is no way they could have pulled off such an intricate and detailed plan. A slow flying plane was allowed to crash into the Pentagon (heart of our military) without being intercepted or shot down. Give me a break. Do a little research and the rabbit hole goes much, much deeper.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 9:09 p.m.
And let me be clear, since it is not in my post: all THREE saw the plane fly into the building. And all three lost friends and colleagues. And, frankly, it is disgusting that anyone would suggest that it did not happen the way it happened. GN&GL
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 6:53 p.m.
I have USMA classmates who were there and witnessed it--two who were outside the building when it happened, a third who was in an office at the far end of the wing where it hit. I trust them implicitly. Duty--HONOR--Country Good Night and Good Luck
G. Orwell
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 6:01 p.m.
How about providing evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon? That should be easy enough.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 4:14 p.m.
When one defines evidence as that which only they will accept, one can come to the conclusion that the moon is made of cheese. GN&GL
G. Orwell
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 3:17 p.m.
Edward, Prove what we've been told is true. Please stay away from the government/media kool aid. I base my beliefs on facts. You appear to base it on what you are told.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 11:22 a.m.
Everyone put on their tin-foil hats! Good Night and Good Luck
Diagenes
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 1:32 a.m.
President Clinton viewd radical islam and their terrorist acts as a law enforcement problem. How did that work for us?
Arborcomment
Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 12:55 a.m.
Like their name, memories of ghosts are fleeting. Let me fill is a couple of holes. 1) Twice the Sudanese government offered to turn over UBL. Clinton was a little pre-occupied with an "intern-nal" incident. 2) Bush and Cheney were attempting to get the return of the crew of a Navy P-3 recon aircraft (big, slow, four prop engines) that was bumped by a Chinese fighter jet aircraft over international waters and forced to land in China. Perhaps the ghost could tell us however just what documents Clinton National Security Adviser Sonny Bulger removed from the classified documents section of the National Security Archives during the 9/11 commission investigation?
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 11:28 a.m.
Worked pretty well. The 1993 bombers of the WTC are in jail for life and it did not cost hundreds of billions of dollars to do so. Had the CIA turned over to the FBI (a law enforcement agency) all of the information it had, it seems likely that the 9/11 attacks could have been averted. Source: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/us/12agent.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=CIA&st=cse" rel='nofollow'>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/us/12agent.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=CIA&st=cse</a> Of course, had Bush II bothered to read "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US", there might be a different story, too. But he and Cheney were, if you recall the summer of 2001, too busy trying to pick a fight with China to pay attention to some inconsequential terrorist. Good Night and Good Luck
Mark D.
Sun, Sep 18, 2011 : 10:28 p.m.
I can see why we lost the Vietnam war. With defeatists undermining US power at every turn, we'll probably lose Afghanistan too and the end result will be the same as after Vietnam and Cambodia; genocide. And the left, with blood on their collective hands, will do what they do best; blame everyone else.
Joe Kidd
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 5:30 p.m.
We did not lose the war in Vietnam. If you think we did, then give us the date and location of our surrender. We lost South Vietnam to communism but we did not lose the war. The US never lost a major battle in that war. We may not have lost SVN if President Ford had dropped some bombs on Hanoi while NVN was violating the peace treaty.
sbbuilder
Sun, Sep 18, 2011 : 8:55 p.m.
"...set a world example for non-violent conflict resolution..." Ohh, were it so simple. The notion here is that if a few really kind hearted leaders show the way, all the nuckle dragging blood thirsty crazed lunatics will stand in awe and peacefully lay down their suicide vests and IED's and melt down their AK's and then hold hands and sing kumbaya. News flash, folks. Ain't gonna happen. Some people still believe there is still a Devil, and that evil invades people's hearts (I am one). And if that is the case, then the 'why can't we just all get along' crowd will get mowed over every time. Hey, ask Ghandi how the peaceful thing worked out. I seem to recall a wee spot of bother with the whole Pakistan (E/W) thing, and getting shot wasn't necessarily part of the plan, either.
1bit
Sun, Sep 18, 2011 : 6:59 p.m.
I agree with Mr. Stieber in that 9/11 wasn't a declaration of war - it actually came eight years earlier in 1993 with the original WTC bombing attempt. I believe the use of force (even disproportionately) was an absolute necessity after 9/11. Call it what you will, but it had to be done. Though I do not share some of bedrog's views, I believe his assessment of some of the perpertrators of 9/11 (and the other US targets before) is correct: what history will show is a progressive escalation of violence by an enemy to the US. Some of you may not be familiar with the culture in that region, but to vacillate or hesitate is a sign of weakness and acquiescence. It would have led to worse things. The response by the U.S. in Afghanistan and Pakistan may be decried here at times, and certainly there most of the time, but I will tell you that in that region they understand why it is occurring. In that area, a ten-year campaign is considered short. Eye for an eye justice is what is understood, as is suffering for the crimes of your brother. Now, with that said, Iraq was a NEOCON fairytale and the lesson of much of the wars is that democracy cannot be forced at the barrel of a gun. I also think our exit from Afghanistan/Pakistan is near as we've mostly defeated our enemy and we've made our point to those who would attack us.
David Briegel
Sun, Sep 18, 2011 : 6:39 p.m.
bedrog, Please enlighten us mere mortals as to the success of "outsiders, invaders, occupiers in these regions? And then tell us how our reactions have made our lives better? tim, the Iraq war wasn't just fabricated. It was childish, petulant, vengeful, wasteful, foolish, and unfortunately an overly costly representative of our NECON American "values"!
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 12:50 p.m.
Nope. Far too many angry folks on this for me to identify who I am. Moreover, this is a "community" according to A2.com. So please enlighten the "community". Cast some pearls before we swine. Cutting and pasting links ain't that hard, and the questions are reasonable ones, no matter what you might think of the person who posed them. That is, unless you are unable to do so. Easy to take ad hominem swipes at Juan Cole and at others (e.g., ADD). Far more difficult to have . . . you know . . . . FACTS . . . to support one's opinion. GN&GL
bedrog
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 12:38 p.m.
ERMG: When people seize on a single, non contextual sub - sub--phrase as a way to 'refute' that's a sign of ADD.. or OCD. But tell ya what: I'm happy to provide you with some serious food for thought /data but im not that great at online links , whether to my own writings or that of others since im a bit old for the cyber world and often find it ' garbage in- garbage out-y" even though you seem to love it. I prefer actual books and hard print with editorial standards)) So this post will allow a2.com to provide you with my real identity in return for yours. Let's chat face to face and i'll bet we have more areas of agreement than disagreement and that i can show you the error of pollyannaism in international affairs, which is as vacuuous as the creationism and climate change denial i'm sure we both despise.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 11:19 a.m.
"but dont have limitless patience with those with A.D.D " = another way of saying he has neither facts nor logic with which to provide a meaningful answer. GN&GL
bedrog
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 11:06 a.m.
ERMG...I can , and repeatedly have ( in public lectures, private consultations, academic articles, op eds and on these threads) ...but dont have limitless patience with those with A.D.D .
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Sep 18, 2011 : 11:57 p.m.
"but i won't bother here since you clearly have a looptape thing going." = he cannot do so in any meaningful, logical, factual manner. Good Night and Good Luck
bedrog
Sun, Sep 18, 2011 : 7:41 p.m.
David ...I could, and have tried, to enlighten you but i won't bother here since you clearly have a looptape thing going. Suffice it to say that things would be much worse without forcefully confronting jihadists...and although some of our tactics have not worked as hoped others have , at least as well as one could reasonably expect in the horrible circumstances--especially drones and targeted special ops which Obama, contra his more hawkish critics, has supported effectively. This is not a fight "we" started, whether you choose to believe it or not...and you clearly don't. Fortunately a bipartisan majority in government disagrees with you. A final word: It is you who clearly believe in the "western exceptionalism" you claim to oppose. i.e. You clearly believe "we" have all the power and responsibility to solve all ills while giving the actual perpetrators endless "passes" . Is that because you believe them incapable of rational, adult abilities to self- correct?? ( If so, I admit that sadly there's considerable and evolving evidence to support you on this last point, the badly mis and prematurely named " Arab springs" notwithstanding).
Joe Kidd
Sun, Sep 18, 2011 : 4:59 p.m.
No, I disagree completely. The terrorists who attacked New York, Washington, and where ever UA Flight 93 would have crashed were all from foreign countries who came here for the purpose of attacking the US. Regardless of whether or not they represented a "country" it was still an attack on the US by a foreign element. They are members of an international element who are bent on attacking and disrupting the United States and other western countries. The only difference is that they do not have a "country" of their own. Perhaps one day they will, maybe soon after we leave Afghanistan. So they do not officially associate with a country? What difference does that make? Should that be the difference between an act of war and a crime? I think not. Many countries offer sanctuary and aid to terrorists. Non violent conflict resolution does not work when dealing with a people who believe that their way of life is superior to the rest of the world which is what Neville Chamberlain found out with his non violent conflict resolution agreement he made with Hitler. It doesn't seem to work in the Mid East either. You can cite ad nauseum that the lack of WMD found in Iraq was a huge mistake, but it has been made clear that Iraq wanted the US to think they had them. Hussain admitted that after he was caught. Frankly I am glad that there is only one hostile country in the Mid East building nuclear weapons and not two. Non violent conflict resolution sure has worked well with that issue, hasn't it? As it has with the North Korean nuclear program.
Basic Bob
Tue, Sep 20, 2011 : 2:04 a.m.
@Joe Kidd, That's like saying OPEC makes Molotov cocktails. First, you pump the oil....
Joe Kidd
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 5:27 p.m.
Iran Basic Bob. Iran is building a nuclear weapon program. The UN thinks so: <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7266349/UN-accuses-Iran-of-working-to-build-nuclear-bomb.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7266349/UN-accuses-Iran-of-working-to-build-nuclear-bomb.html</a>
bedrog
Sun, Sep 18, 2011 : 5:44 p.m.
joe...of course you are correct ( sadly) and the responses to you by those who outrageously ( if repeatedly and boringly predictably!) seem to equate the U.s. and israel with al qaeda/ the taliban/ hamas/ al shabaab/ boko haram/hizbollah/jundallah/lashkar i taiba etc--- and their legions of supporters on the islamic 'street' and sometimes in governments-- is just a sign that astigmatic pollyannas who are beyond reason and rationality ( and evidently newspapers, to say nothing of academic history) exist. Actually I wish there were more of their hyper self critical relativism, in the countries and cultures that spawn terrorists. Certainly that would be preferable to violent and imperialistic jihadism and antisemitism that is nurtured in many such places from childhood on....and not in simply tiny extremist enclaves.
Basic Bob
Sun, Sep 18, 2011 : 5:24 p.m.
"only one hostile country in the Mid East building nuclear weapons"? You must mean the unconfirmed nuclear capability of Israel, since Pakistan is not in the Middle East, but South Asia. Israel may be hostile toward their neighbors, but definitely not hostile toward the US. Or possibly you mean Syria and Iran, who are suspected of having weapons programs, but not actual weapons.
David Briegel
Sun, Sep 18, 2011 : 5:23 p.m.
We obviously think our corrupt way of life to be superior to their corrupt way of life!
SonnyDog09
Sun, Sep 18, 2011 : 4:45 p.m.
"On this 10th anniversary of the squandering of an opportunity to set a world example for non-violent conflict resolution..." Perhaps the author might provide us with a proposal or two for resolving the conflict non-violently?
SonnyDog09
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 1:40 p.m.
So, how does throwing lawyers at them solve the conflict? IIRC, the lawerly response to the 1993 bombing did not do much to solve anything.
Tom Smith
Sun, Sep 18, 2011 : 5:15 p.m.
How about emulating the reaction to the 1993 WTC bombing? You know, the one where we tracked down, tried, and incarcerated the people who did it, and they're still in prison? Al Queda was a bunch of guys who wanted to be scary, and they dreamed big, and the Bush administration's reaction to their awful crimes gave them everything they could've asked for.
tim
Sun, Sep 18, 2011 : 4:44 p.m.
They hit the pentagon for crying out loud, if you hit a wasp nest with a stick your going to get stung. The war in Afghanistan was justified ,but the Iraq war was fabricated.
Ed Murrow
Sun, Sep 18, 2011 : 6:58 p.m.
You justify a ten year war because that was how long it took to kill bin Laden. Now that he is dead the U.S. can pull out of Afghanistan. Going into Iraq was wrong.
David Briegel
Sun, Sep 18, 2011 : 5:20 p.m.
How do you justify a 10 year war? We stung them and continue to sting them! We don't need to waste 12 billion a month and countless lives in these follies! They aren't doing the whining, we are. At least some of us.
SonnyDog09
Sun, Sep 18, 2011 : 4:48 p.m.
When you start a fight by hitting someone with a sucker punch, you have no business whining about how the other fellow finishes the fight.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Sep 18, 2011 : 4:19 p.m.
If I was the King of America, I would pull all our troops home and assign them to guard our borders.
Will Warner
Sun, Sep 18, 2011 : 4:04 p.m.
Alas, idealism did not die on the Somme. I confess that pacifism has always gone over my head. But today, after all that has happened, it is unfathomable. Death-camp survivor Primo Levi wrote that "a world in which everyone would be [pacifists], that is, honest and unarmed, would be tolerable, but this is an unreal world. In the real world the armed exist, they build Auschwitz and the honest and unarmed clear the road for them. After Auschwitz it is no longer permissible to be unarmed." Similarly, in the climactic scene of "The Caine Mutiny" the lawyer Barney Greenwald gives us the point of the story: "Can't stop a Nazi with a Law book." Greenwald and Levi saw that further talking was pointless. You can't stop a terrorist with a law book. There must be a spot, a line, beyond which trespassers are shot. Actually shot. The atrocities of Sept. 11 leapt across that line. In the attacks, the lucky were instantly incinerated. Hundreds chocked out their last breaths whimpering in shock and fear, their throats and lungs corroded by the black miasma of burning petroleum. The doomed huddled at windows begging for rescue, as the flames consumed their hopes. Today, moments of silence and verses of "America the Beautiful" are fine, I suppose. But what we still need are men who know how to squeeze a trigger. More people died in this atrocity than at Pearl Harbor, and another attack will come unless we prevent it. The dangers of not acting are worse than the dangers of acting. Pacifism was useless when Assyria's Bronze Age armies sacked Babylon and put its entire population to the sword. Because those who threaten us see our restraint as weakness, pacifists do not contribute to security or peace today. They are benighted children whose sublime sensibilities make it impossible for them to face the awful facts of life. Indeed, I would trade them all for one American bomber pilot.
David Briegel
Sun, Sep 18, 2011 : 3:54 p.m.
We got the main men who did this yet we are spending 12 billion a month as the occupiers of these lands. That is why we are hated in that part of the world. And we won't even count those millions of killed, maimed, displaced, and negatively affected. Creating more martyrs on a daily basis! We can continue to prosecute the war on Al Queda and still bring the troops home! Where they belong! Can you imagine sending your loved one to die for the those failed, wasteful, corrupt and completely dishonest regimes? And then there is the wasteful Pentagon! Arnie, Thank you for your service and your insight.
Arborcomment
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 9:58 p.m.
Wow! what angst David. It always amuses me when a little agenda mixes in with too many watched episodes of "24" to create armchair generals and historians. Your example of Tora Bora proves my point. The back door to PAKISTAN remained open due to the speed and success of the initial Afghan campaign, no US bases had yet to be set up to handle the large number of troops required to close the large border. The only alternative would have been to drop troops at the backdoor. Ever dropped in the mountains in winter David? They are #1 high, #2 Snowy and subject to crappy weather, and #3 Rocks. Ten years later, where do you think the SEAL Team flew from that got UBL? I'm sure our scientists at Area 51 are still attempting that Star Trek transporter stuff but until they succeed, military operations are built on the old real estate term, location, location, location. And you must hold that location. PS: and David, I departed for that AOR (Area Of Responsibility) on October 10th 2001, was in Afghanistan by October 21st. I was in the Tora Bora region in the third week of December 2001. There were no tucked tails there.
Macabre Sunset
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 3:58 a.m.
We're hated in that part of the world for many reasons, not the least of which is a religion based on hatred. We could send them roses and ice cream cones and they'd still hate us.
David Briegel
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 1:26 a.m.
arborcomment, That is totally asurd. We got Osama because the CIA stayed on the job in PAKISTAN ever since the Cowboy tucked his tail between his legs at Tora Bora and cut and run for his vengeful folly in Iraq. There really is no war since Congress is too chicken to declare it! America hasn't won a war since WWII! jcj, you are completely correct!
Arborcomment
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 1:02 a.m.
David, we "got" some of the "main men that did this" because we are in Afghanistan. "Prosecuting the war on Al Queda and still bring the troops home" is a Joe Biden fantasy with no basis in understanding what it takes to do a military operation. (and thanks for calling it "war" to refute the lead item)
jcj
Sun, Sep 18, 2011 : 11:35 p.m.
David It is not often I agree with you. But to this degree I agree. Irrespective of how we got to where we are we are long past the point where our troops should have been brought home. Bring them home now.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Sep 18, 2011 : 3:53 p.m.
The nice thing about the Internet is the ability to store bits and bytes is virtually limitless.