9/11 five years on
September 7th 2006 11:06
9/11 five years on.
Time for some sober reflection on the sober reflection we did five years ago. The events of 9/11 and the collapse of the twin towers was seen by millions on live television. After days of non stop analysis and repetition of the images there was sense of injustice and indignation about the crime. At the time it was a safe bet to image that somewhere there would be a heavy price to pay. America was angry and someone was going to get blasted for it. A comparison with America’s reaction to Pearl Harbor was easy to draw. Suddenly George Bush was transformed from a fairly mundane and unpopular to president to the savior of his nation and the world. Bin Laden was identified as the prime suspect and Afghanistan his protector. The mindset made War inevitable.
The Bush to reaction to 9/11 was predictable as the USA had never been hit on there own mainland before and this had petrified a nation. As the nation that had inherited the status of the last remaining superpower it was easy to believe that it had become the new Rome (S.P.Q.USA). After the attack Bin Laden was like Hannibal threatening the existence of the Roman Empire. He grew from being another terrorist to something omnipresent and infectious. The war on terror was declared and the Bush world was divided into those with ‘us’ and those against.
Five years after 9/11 it is reasonable to ask if the tactics you are using in the war on terror are in fact working. (Is Rome now safe from Hannibal?) Are the tactics being employed effectively lowering the threat of attack or are they making things worse? Or are we tactically clever but strategically foolish? Winning battles but loosing the war?
Some reality checks needs to be made to answer this question. The first aim to capture or kill Bin Laden has failed to deliver. The transformation of Afghanistan from an oppressive theocracy to a liberal democracy is still facing serious and costly battles. The change of régime has also seen the resurgence in opium product to unimaginable levels. Iraq may have lost one dictator but is now poised for civil war. Soon the number of soldiers who die in Iraq will exceed the number of people killed in 9/11. The Abu Graib scandal, Guantanamo Bay and Secret overseas CIA prisons are being used as terrorist recruitment propaganda.
Bin Laden could be accused of being grossly incompetent for using a tactic that was certain to cause an overwhelming response. However has the war on terror been less foolish in its methods? Does striking out with a terrible wrath repel the enemy or harden their resolve? It is difficult to imagine that a suicide bomber running from the threat of being killed. It is also just as hard to imagine the current tactic in the war on terror being effective.
Time for some sober reflection on the sober reflection we did five years ago. The events of 9/11 and the collapse of the twin towers was seen by millions on live television. After days of non stop analysis and repetition of the images there was sense of injustice and indignation about the crime. At the time it was a safe bet to image that somewhere there would be a heavy price to pay. America was angry and someone was going to get blasted for it. A comparison with America’s reaction to Pearl Harbor was easy to draw. Suddenly George Bush was transformed from a fairly mundane and unpopular to president to the savior of his nation and the world. Bin Laden was identified as the prime suspect and Afghanistan his protector. The mindset made War inevitable.
The Bush to reaction to 9/11 was predictable as the USA had never been hit on there own mainland before and this had petrified a nation. As the nation that had inherited the status of the last remaining superpower it was easy to believe that it had become the new Rome (S.P.Q.USA). After the attack Bin Laden was like Hannibal threatening the existence of the Roman Empire. He grew from being another terrorist to something omnipresent and infectious. The war on terror was declared and the Bush world was divided into those with ‘us’ and those against.
Five years after 9/11 it is reasonable to ask if the tactics you are using in the war on terror are in fact working. (Is Rome now safe from Hannibal?) Are the tactics being employed effectively lowering the threat of attack or are they making things worse? Or are we tactically clever but strategically foolish? Winning battles but loosing the war?
Some reality checks needs to be made to answer this question. The first aim to capture or kill Bin Laden has failed to deliver. The transformation of Afghanistan from an oppressive theocracy to a liberal democracy is still facing serious and costly battles. The change of régime has also seen the resurgence in opium product to unimaginable levels. Iraq may have lost one dictator but is now poised for civil war. Soon the number of soldiers who die in Iraq will exceed the number of people killed in 9/11. The Abu Graib scandal, Guantanamo Bay and Secret overseas CIA prisons are being used as terrorist recruitment propaganda.
Bin Laden could be accused of being grossly incompetent for using a tactic that was certain to cause an overwhelming response. However has the war on terror been less foolish in its methods? Does striking out with a terrible wrath repel the enemy or harden their resolve? It is difficult to imagine that a suicide bomber running from the threat of being killed. It is also just as hard to imagine the current tactic in the war on terror being effective.
| 72 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
