PDA

View Full Version : USA Overreacted to 9-11



red states rule
02-01-2007, 09:30 PM
Another reason why libs can never be trusted with national security and national defense

This pointy headed elite would have America bend over, grab her ankles, and let the terrorists have their way with all of us


Putting 9/11 into perspective
The attacks were a horrible act of mass murder, but history says we're overreacting.
By David A. Bell
January 28, 2007


IMAGINE THAT on 9/11, six hours after the assault on the twin towers and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks on the United States, taking an additional 3,000 lives. Imagine that six hours after that, there had been yet another wave. Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead. This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II, and contemplating these numbers may help put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against terrorism.

It also raises several questions. Has the American reaction to the attacks in fact been a massive overreaction? Is the widespread belief that 9/11 plunged us into one of the deadliest struggles of our time simply wrong? If we did overreact, why did we do so? Does history provide any insight?

Certainly, if we look at nothing but our enemies' objectives, it is hard to see any indication of an overreaction. The people who attacked us in 2001 are indeed hate-filled fanatics who would like nothing better than to destroy this country. But desire is not the same thing as capacity, and although Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States.

Yet a great many Americans, particularly on the right, have failed to make this distinction. For them, the "Islamo-fascist" enemy has inherited not just Adolf Hitler's implacable hatreds but his capacity to destroy. The conservative author Norman Podhoretz has gone so far as to say that we are fighting World War IV (No. III being the Cold War).

But it is no disrespect to the victims of 9/11, or to the men and women of our armed forces, to say that, by the standards of past wars, the war against terrorism has so far inflicted a very small human cost on the United States. As an instance of mass murder, the attacks were unspeakable, but they still pale in comparison with any number of military assaults on civilian targets of the recent past, from Hiroshima on down.

Even if one counts our dead in Iraq and Afghanistan as casualties of the war against terrorism, which brings us to about 6,500, we should remember that roughly the same number of Americans die every two months in automobile accidents.

Of course, the 9/11 attacks also conjured up the possibility of far deadlier attacks to come. But then, we were hardly ignorant of these threats before, as a glance at just about any thriller from the 1990s will testify. And despite the even more nightmarish fantasies of the post-9/11 era (e.g. the TV show "24's" nuclear attack on Los Angeles), Islamist terrorists have not come close to deploying weapons other than knives, guns and conventional explosives. A war it may be, but does it really deserve comparison to World War II and its 50 million dead? Not every adversary is an apocalyptic threat.

So why has there been such an overreaction? Unfortunately, the commentators who detect one have generally explained it in a tired, predictably ideological way: calling the United States a uniquely paranoid aggressor that always overreacts to provocation.

In a recent book, for instance, political scientist John Mueller evaluated the threat that terrorists pose to the United States and convincingly concluded that it has been, to quote his title, "Overblown." But he undercut his own argument by adding that the United States has overreacted to every threat in its recent history, including even Pearl Harbor (rather than trying to defeat Japan, he argued, we should have tried containment!).

Seeing international conflict in apocalyptic terms — viewing every threat as existential — is hardly a uniquely American habit. To a certain degree, it is a universal human one. But it is also, more specifically, a Western one, which paradoxically has its origins in one of the most optimistic periods of human history: the 18th century Enlightenment.

Until this period, most people in the West took warfare for granted as an utterly unavoidable part of the social order. Western states fought constantly and devoted most of their disposable resources to this purpose; during the 1700s, no more than six or seven years passed without at least one major European power at war.

The Enlightenment, however, popularized the notion that war was a barbaric relic of mankind's infancy, an anachronism that should soon vanish from the Earth. Human societies, wrote the influential thinkers of the time, followed a common path of historical evolution from savage beginnings toward ever-greater levels of peaceful civilization, politeness and commercial exchange.

The unexpected consequence of this change was that those who considered themselves "enlightened," but who still thought they needed to go to war, found it hard to justify war as anything other than an apocalyptic struggle for survival against an irredeemably evil enemy. In such struggles, of course, there could be no reason to practice restraint or to treat the enemy as an honorable opponent.

Ever since, the enlightened dream of perpetual peace and the nightmare of modern total war have been bound closely to each other in the West. Precisely when the Enlightenment hopes glowed most brightly, wars often took on an especially hideous character.

The Enlightenment was followed by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, which touched every European state, sparked vicious guerrilla conflicts across the Continent and killed millions (including, probably, a higher proportion of young Frenchmen than died from 1914 to 1918).

During the hopeful early years of the 20th century, journalist Norman Angell's huge bestseller, "The Great Illusion," argued that wars had become too expensive to fight. Then came the unspeakable horrors of World War I. And the end of the Cold War, which seemed to promise the worldwide triumph of peace and democracy in a more stable unipolar world, has been followed by the wars in the Balkans, the Persian Gulf War and the present global upheaval. In each of these conflicts, the United States has justified the use of force by labeling its foe a new Hitler, not only in evil intentions but in potential capacity.

Yet as the comparison with the Soviet experience should remind us, the war against terrorism has not yet been much of a war at all, let alone a war to end all wars. It is a messy, difficult, long-term struggle against exceptionally dangerous criminals who actually like nothing better than being put on the same level of historical importance as Hitler — can you imagine a better recruiting tool? To fight them effectively, we need coolness, resolve and stamina. But we also need to overcome long habit and remind ourselves that not every enemy is in fact a threat to our existence.

David A. Bell, a professor of history at Johns Hopkins University and a contributing editor for the New Republic, is the author of "The First Total War: Napoleon's Europe and the Birth of Warfare as We Know It."

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-bell28jan28,0,7267967.story

theHawk
02-07-2007, 10:12 AM
Yet as the comparison with the Soviet experience should remind us, the war against terrorism has not yet been much of a war at all, let alone a war to end all wars. It is a messy, difficult, long-term struggle against exceptionally dangerous criminals who actually like nothing better than being put on the same level of historical importance as Hitler — can you imagine a better recruiting tool? To fight them effectively, we need coolness, resolve and stamina. But we also need to overcome long habit and remind ourselves that not every enemy is in fact a threat to our existence.

Who ever said its a war to end all wars?

And didn't our President say this war was going to be a long and difficult struggle?

Is this guy serious? He is contending that terrorists don't have the capability of Hitler to kill people? In one day alone the terrorists killed more people on American soil than the Imperial Japanese military did at Pearl Harbor, much less Hitler who couldn't even touch America.
Just because they don't use the same means doesn't mean they can't inflict the damage, especially in the nuclear age.

red states rule
02-08-2007, 05:43 PM
Who ever said its a war to end all wars?

And didn't our President say this war was going to be a long and difficult struggle?

Is this guy serious? He is contending that terrorists don't have the capability of Hitler to kill people? In one day alone the terrorists killed more people on American soil than the Imperial Japanese military did at Pearl Harbor, much less Hitler who couldn't even touch America.
Just because they don't use the same means doesn't mean they can't inflict the damage, especially in the nuclear age.

When trying to figure out liberals, you can never mix the issues with facts

Yes, this jerk is serious. This is the way most libs see the US, and see the world

Gaffer
02-08-2007, 07:40 PM
I noticed he used the favorite word of the libs "containment".Which means, convince yourself you have them boxed in and go about your business while they build up to break out.

trobinett
02-08-2007, 07:48 PM
Well shit, this just does nothing if not piss me off.

Turn the other cheek, it could of been worst, many more could have died, there could have been additional strikes, nobody to blame but ourselves.

I tell ya, if anybody believes this shit, even for a minute, their totally screwed, and have their head atached backward.

WE didn't start this, ANYTHING could be worst, of course more could have died, they TRIED to hit us multiple times, and WE aren't to blame.

I think that about covers that stupid fuck'n article.

Boy, I'm about discussed with this whole train of thought.

We are asked to shoulder the blame for EVERYTHING, pre 911, post 911, and everything in between.

Sorry, I don't buy into any of that whipping, and those that do, your truly misinformed.

red states rule
02-08-2007, 08:17 PM
Well shit, this just does nothing if not piss me off.

Turn the other cheek, it could of been worst, many more could have died, there could have been additional strikes, nobody to blame but ourselves.

I tell ya, if anybody believes this shit, even for a minute, their totally screwed, and have their head atached backward.

WE didn't start this, ANYTHING could be worst, of course more could have died, they TRIED to hit us multiple times, and WE aren't to blame.

I think that about covers that stupid fuck'n article.

Boy, I'm about discussed with this whole train of thought.

We are asked to shoulder the blame for EVERYTHING, pre 911, post 911, and everything in between.

Sorry, I don't buy into any of that whipping, and those that do, your truly misinformed.



Why are you suprised? Libs have a long history of not wanting to stand up and confront evil

Gaffer
02-08-2007, 10:43 PM
Why are you suprised? Libs have a long history of not wanting to stand up and confront evil

Yep they just want to contain it and pretend its not there anymore.

Pale Rider
02-09-2007, 02:35 PM
If any of the crap this guy espouses was true, and the "world" is "aware" that America over reacts, THEN WHY DO THEY FUCK WITH US?

If they "know" we're hitting back ten fold, why attacks us? Why not leave us the fuck alone?

The article is a prime example of distorted thinking and anit-Americanism on the part of yet another America bashing liberal piece of shit.

theHawk
02-09-2007, 02:51 PM
If any of the crap this guy espouses was true, and the "world" is "aware" that America over reacts, THEN WHY DO THEY FUCK WITH US?

If they "know" we're hitting back ten fold, why attacks us? Why not leave us the fuck alone?

The article is a prime example of distorted thinking and anit-Americanism on the part of yet another America bashing liberal piece of shit.

Haha, thats my thoughts exactly. What the fuck is wrong with OVERREACTING when attacked? It should deter people from doing so.

Norse_soul
02-09-2007, 04:16 PM
One of my favorite writers, Terry Goodkind, wrote several statements that make absolute sense,

1. the enemy always believes they are right
2. you cannot hesitate for a moment when confronting an enemy
3. whatever your enemy is willing to do, you must do also. Remember, the aggressor makes the rules.

Basically, you have to hit them where it hurts. When we were fighting for independence, England had us over a barrel, better trained, better equiped, and more troops, we turned the tables on them by becoming the aggressor and using Gorilla tactics against an enemy who insisted on marching in a straight line and wearing red coats.

What happened in Vietnam. We were walking around "wearing red" while our enemy used gorilla tactics on us.

What is happening in the current war....We are walking around "wearing red" while our enemy uses gorilla tactics on us.

We can't be afraid of what the 'liberals' will say about our tactics. Or the world for that matter...we have to change tactics with our enemies intent. If they use gorilla tactics on us, we have to do the same. If they bomb our buildings and hijack our airplanes, we start bombing them. If they attack our civilian populace, we can't be afraid to take out a known enemy just because of collateral damage.

There is no such thing as over reaction when lives are at stake or taken. If a man walks up and shoots at your family, what do you do...kill the son of a bitch by whatever means possible.

red states rule
02-09-2007, 04:21 PM
Haha, thats my thoughts exactly. What the fuck is wrong with OVERREACTING when attacked? It should deter people from doing so.

The wimps at MoveOn.org had a petiton for peace on their website on 9-12. They were opposed to any military action

Now the libs are running the House and Senate.

Feel safer now?