Not to try to depart too far from the article, but I believe there is a wider issue-we have a "war" on terror, and many things are done in the name of "war'. It seems to me that war is reserved for situations that threaten the security of the United States. In my opinion terrorism threatens the lives of Americans, but not the security of the country. Without meaning to demean the tragedy of 9/11, 3,000 deaths doesn't threaten the security of the country. The same argument may be made against the "war' on drugs, another questionable enterprise.

What's the importance of this? We can start treating terrorists as criminals rather than the "enemy". Our resourses can go toward intelligence and prevention/aprehension, and we deny the terrorists the status of soldiers.

Of course it's not this simple, but we ought to consider the idea.

I was going to start my own post along these same lines, but finally - FINALLY - someone sees things for what they are and is willing to bring up what the Patriot Act Framers intended to make taboo... So thanks, Appleful.

The lives lost were an absolute shame on 9/11, but our country goes on - and before we decided on superficial revenge (and a greedy oil-grab to boot) we really had the eyes' of the world on us in sympathy and support. It was a moment where we had an opportunity to showcase our heart, our forgiveness, our resiliency, and our power. And we blew it. We could have shown how important an individual citizen is in America by mourning them properly, but we abruptly stopped their funeral to prepare for another's. We could have shown our discernible forgiveness by embracing the muslims of our country, instead we lumped them together in fear and isolation. We could have taken the a miniscule fraction of what would be our war-chest in Iraq, and speedily rebuilt our towers - disheartening our true enemies by marginalizing their impact. We could have shown our resiliency and power by downplaying how much fear an act such as 9/11 can effect on us - instead our leadership rallied and fanned the fires of our fears, and the impact, THE GOAL, of the act was exponentially increased.

We did everything exactly WRONG to ensure our global standing, power, and respect.

9/11 was terrible. I had a close friend die that day, and he was far, far too young. But America goes on.

Early in the 20th century, a Mexican former-general and rebel named Pancho Villa had gained support as his character became a sort of contemporary Robin Hood. The people liked him for his brashness, but his support wained as do all fascinations with fads. He decided to do one more power grab, and raided a city across the border, Columbus, New Mexico. But it wasn't until our president, Woodrow Wilson went against suggestions to leave it be. It was assumed that things would die down, as the raid was partly based on an arms deal (revenge on Villa's part) and that his support wasn't growing anymore, even with the daring raid. But Wilson wanted to "make a symbol" out of this attack on our soil (sound familiar?) and also wanted our armies to practice with this newfangled-flying machine, the airplane. Truth is, Wilson's Punitive Expedition (to find Pancho) was a complete failure. By being acknowledged by the Mighty US, his grassroots support soared, farmers would routinely lead General Pershing and his men off-course, and he was never captured, to the embarrassment of our country. Today, he's still regarded for his cunning and bravery and is a Mexican folk hero, and it was only when he caught the US military's attention that it was cemented in history. The moral of the story is, when you acknowledge an inconsequential enemy, they are no longer inconsequential, you bring them up to your level.

It's a shame we have to learn that lesson again so soon.

Let me see if I understand both of you correctly. A 9/11 style attack committed on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil does not constitute a threat to the security of the United States as a country????? Please help me understand what in you mind does. Do the terrorists have to nuke say a half dozen U.S. cities and take over the White House, Pentagon and Congress before you would say, oh shit our country's security is being threatened? Does a hostile foreign country have to actual land an invading force somewhere in the U.S. before our country's security is at risk? What exactly would you have done to make right the wrong done on 9/11/ Would you have sent Osama a letter of reprimand telling him if he does it again you'll confine him to his cave? I am at a loss to understand just what it takes to make you two feel that the national security is at risk. Do not take me the wrong way here. I do not believe we should have invaded Iraq. Afghanistan yes, Iraq, NO. Osama was in caves in Afghanistan and as far as I know, fled from there to Pakistan, not Iraq. I am still trying to figure out (other than oil we haven't taken) why we invaded Iraq. I fully support our soldiers in what they do, but I do not support the alleged reason they were sent there. So help me out here people, just how bad does an attack on U.S. soil have to get before, in your opinions, it is a threat to national security?

To answer NYECOP's question:

National security = Sovereignty.

Sovereignty = Land under the control of its citizens.

US land lost to terrorists, ever = 0 (Z-E-R-O).

Conclusion: The US is safe. Very safe.

no. security is protection from harm.

one of the lessons from 9/11 is that al qaeda has the where-with-all to carry out a major attack on u.s. soil. because they are able to operate in a safe have in pakistan, they are able to plan not another 9/11, but something much worse. they are looking towards the next step, most probably nuclear. that is what is truly frightening. if you think the detonation of a small nuclear device on u.s. soil has nothing to do with national security, you are dreaming.

so i wonder, if this is simply a matter of arresting bad guys, do you think that an agency like the fbi will have its agents parachute into pakistan to arrest bin laden? i don't think they are trained for such an operation. our fight against terrorists is unique in that it is not a war against a sovereign nation, nor is it just a matter of arresting a bunch of thugs. when the u.s. military becomes involved, the nature of the mission changes.

the comparison to pancho villa was inaccurate. though villa did not seem to have any political goals except power, his crusade only involved the u.s. simply through geographical connection. one of his raids crossed into the u.s., therefore we became involved. because of this raid it became more of a territorial dispute, rather than the ideological dispute that exists with the al qaeda crazies.

there are several ideas at work here. bin laden is a megalomaniac seeking only power. his recruits, however, come from a fertile ground of xenophobia and paranoia created not by direct hatred of u.s., rather by societies that allow the anger to foment. the liberal, and sometimes old-school conservative, idea that everything the u.s. does influences the social outcomes of foreign nations, is not only arrogant it is absurd. the al qaeda recruits are created by their family and their upbringing. period.

i have many friends who are internationals from muslim countries. many of them are considered quite liberal by muslim standards, drinking alcohol, not attending prayers and yes even (gasp!) eating pork. even these liberal graduate students make me wonder when they speak with an unhealthy paranoia about jews or about xenophobic conspiracy theories.

we can't force these backwards societies to progress any faster than they choose. on the other hand, we still need to protect ourselves and others from real harm and aggressively pursue terrorists even into their enclaves. sitting around and waiting for pakistan to evolve is not an option. i don't believe it would be any worse than it is now if we were to send in our special forces on regular missions to western pakistan. send the troops in, kill whomever is needed and arrest the rest, put them on trial for everyone to see.

will this solve the societal problems in the muslim world? no. not even close. but we can not live in fear of the future in order to pursue justice.

Ignoring the lack of evidence that Bin laden is even still alive- or dead really... it'll be like Elvis, Bin Laden sightings until 2045- Their point is simply this: The US is big. Bigger than the terrorists. Sure they could nuke a city or two. Will that kill a lot of people? yes. Will it allow the terrorists to win? No it won't. As long as there's more americans than islamic terrorists, which there is by more than tenfold- I don't think we'll see the US as a nation threatened. But that's a military argument. These folks aren't looking for a military victory. Instead, they want us jumping at shadows, confiscating jewelry in airports because it LOOKS like a gun, checking every shoe for bombs, pulling ads from TV because the person in the ad is wearing a scarf. They want us to think we're not safe, and the current government is being lead right into it, and leading the citizens right behind it.

PhilistineTheArtLover
05/30/2008, 11:37 PM # Favorites Reply

To answer NYECOP's question:

National security = Sovereignty. Agree

Sovereignty = Land under the control of its citizens. Do not totally agree see below:

US land lost to terrorists, ever = 0 (Z-E-R-O). Can't totally agree, unless the Twin Towers are still standing and 9/11 was just a clever government illusion.

Conclusion: The US is safe. Very safe Yes we are safe, for the moment. If I were you I would not stop locking my doors at night or for one minute believe that if we cut and run from Iraq, that we won't be rewarded much the same as Spain was, or France was for staying out or Britain was for cutting it's troops. As much as I do not like it, our presence in Iraq represents a show of military strength to the terrorists and a cut and run exit will show weakness. They respect/fear military strength and laugh at weakness. Now that Australia is removing their troops watch and see how they are rewarded for leaving the poor terrorists alone.

I think this is the only correct thing that drzamzow said:

when the u.s. military becomes involved, the nature of the mission changes.

And that's part of my point. The Pancho Villa analogy wasn't a literal Osama=Pancho Villa. I simply put it forth as an example of involving the US military when it ISN'T necessary, which elevates the standing and power of an otherwise harmless foe. It also tends to cement their power or myth for a longer period of time. So, no it is not inaccurate.

It's important that we can step back and look at the big picture - and not let our emotions control the situation. We turned 9/11 from an incident into an event. A group of killers become martyrs, we give them a name and they become a rebel group. We let the fear they create poison us, and they become an ideological movement - a movement large enough to begin taking elected power (Hamas).