Could an Attack Like 9 11 Happen Again in Us
Deep within the catalogue of regrets that is the 9/11 Commission study — long afterwards readers larn of the origins and objectives of al-Qaeda, past the warnings ignored by sequent administrations, through the litany of institutional failures that immune terrorists to hijack iv commercial airliners — the authors interruption to make a rousing instance for the ability of the nation's character.
"The U.S. government must define what the message is, what it stands for," the study asserts. "We should offering an instance of moral leadership in the world, committed to treat people humanely, abide by the rule of law, and be generous and caring to our neighbors. . . . We need to defend our ethics abroad vigorously. America does stand upward for its values."
Story continues below advertisement
This affirmation of American idealism is one of the document'southward more opinionated moments. Looking back, it'southward also among the most ignored.
Rather than exemplify the nation's highest values, the official response to 9/11 unleashed some of its worst qualities: deception, brutality, arrogance, ignorance, delusion, overreach and carelessness. This determination is laid blank in the sprawling literature to sally from 9/eleven over the past two decades — the works of investigation, memoir and narrative past journalists and quondam officials that take charted the path to that solar day, revealed the heroism and confusion of the early response, chronicled the battles in and nearly Afghanistan and Republic of iraq, and uncovered the excesses of the war on terror. Reading or rereading a drove of such books today is like watching an sometime movie that feels more anguishing and frustrating than you remember. The anguish comes from knowing how the tale will unfold; the frustration from realizing that this was hardly the but possible outcome.
Whatever individual stories the 9/xi books tell, too many describe the repudiation of U.S. values, not by extremist outsiders but past our ain hand. The betrayal of America's professed principles was the friendly fire of the war on terror. In these works, indifference to the growing terrorist threat gives way to bloodlust and vengeance afterward the attacks. Official dissembling justifies wars, so prolongs them. In the name of counterterrorism, security is politicized, savagery legalized and patriotism weaponized.
It was an emergency, yes, that'due south understood. Merely that country of exception became our new American exceptionalism.
It happened fast. Past 2004, when the ix/xi Committee urged America to "engage the struggle of ideas," it was already too belatedly; the Justice Department'southward initial torture memos were already signed, the Abu Ghraib images had already eviscerated U.S. claims to moral authority. And it has lasted long. The latest works on the legacy of nine/11 show how state of war-on-terror tactics were turned on religious groups, immigrants and protesters in the United States. The war on terror came home, and it walked in similar it owned the place.
"It is for at present far easier for a researcher to explain how and why September 11 happened than it is to explain the aftermath," Steve Coll writes in "Ghost Wars," his 2004 account of the CIA's pre-9/eleven involvement in Afghanistan. Throughout that aftermath, Washington fantasized about remaking the world in its image, only to reveal an ugly image of itself to the world.
The literature of 9/11 also considers Osama bin Laden's varied aspirations for the attacks and his shifting visions of that aftermath. He originally imagined America as weak and easily panicked, retreating from the world — in particular from the Center E — every bit soon as its troops began dying. But bin Laden as well came to grasp, perhaps self-servingly, the benefits of luring Washington into purple overreach, of "bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy," as he put it in 2004, through endless war machine expansionism, thus beating back its global sway and undermining its internal unity. "We conceptualize a black future for America," bin Laden told ABC News more three years before the 9/11 attacks. "Instead of remaining United States, information technology shall end up separated states and shall accept to carry the bodies of its sons dorsum to America."
Bin Laden did not win the war of ideas. Merely neither did nosotros. To an unnerving degree, the Usa moved toward the enemy's fantasies of what it might become — a nation divided in its sense of itself, exposed in its moral and political compromises, conflicted over wars it did not want merely would not end. When President George Westward. Bush addressed the nation from the Oval Office on the evening of Sept. 11, 2001, he asserted that America was attacked considering information technology is "the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the earth, and no one will continue that light from shining." Bush was right; al-Qaeda could not dim the promise of America. Only we could do that to ourselves.
I.
"The about frightening aspect of this new threat . . . was the fact that almost no one took it seriously. It was too bizarre, too primitive and exotic." That is how Lawrence Wright depicts the early on impressions of bin Laden and his terrorist network among U.S. officials in "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to ix/xi." For a country notwithstanding basking in its mail service-Cold War glow, it all seemed so far abroad, even equally al-Qaeda's strikes — on the World Trade Center in 1993, on U.Southward. Embassies in 1998, on the USS Cole in 2000 — grew bolder. This was American self-approbation, mixed with denial.
The books traveling that road to 9/eleven have an inexorable, almost suffocating feel to them, equally though every turn invariably leads to the first crush of steel and glass. Their starting points vary. Wright dwells on the influence of Egyptian thinker Sayyid Qutb, whose mid-20th-century sojourn in the The states animated his vision of a clash between Islam and modernity, and whose work would inspire futurity jihadists. In "Ghost Wars," Coll laments America'south abandonment of Afghanistan once information technology ceased serving as a proxy battleground confronting Moscow. In "The Ascent and Fall of Osama bin Laden," Peter Bergen stresses the moment bin Laden arrived in Afghanistan from Sudan in 1996, when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed showtime pitched him on the planes plot. And the 9/eleven Commission lingers on bin Laden'south declarations of war against the United States, particularly his 1998 fatwa calling it "the individual duty for every Muslim" to murder Americans "in any state in which it is possible."
All the same these early works likewise make clear that the road to 9/11 featured plenty of billboards warning of the likely destination. A Presidential Daily Brief item on Aug. 6, 2001, titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US" became infamous in 9/11 lore, yet the commission report notes that information technology was the 36th PDB relating to bin Laden or al-Qaeda that twelvemonth alone. ("All right. You've covered your ass at present," Bush reportedly sneered at the briefer.) Both the FBI and the CIA produced classified warnings on terrorist threats in the mid-1990s, Coll writes, including a particularly precise National Intelligence Gauge. "Several targets are particularly at risk: national symbols such as the White Firm and the Capitol, and symbols of U.Southward. capitalism such as Wall Street," information technology stated. "Nosotros assess that civil aviation will figure prominently among possible terrorist targets in the Us." Some of the admonitions scattered throughout the nine/11 literature are too over-the-pinnacle even for a moving-picture show script: There's the exasperated State Department official complaining about Defense Section inaction ("Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention?"), and the earnest FBI supervisor in Minneapolis warning a skeptical agent in Washington almost suspected terrorism action, insisting that he was "trying to go along someone from taking a plane and crashing it into the Globe Trade Centre."
In these books, everyone is alarm everyone else. Bergen emphasizes that a young intelligence analyst in the State Section, Gina Bennett, wrote the first classified memo alert almost bin Laden in 1993. Pockets within the FBI and the CIA obsess over bin Laden while regarding one another every bit rivals. On his mode out, President Pecker Clinton warns Bush. Outgoing national security adviser Sandy Berger warns his successor, Condoleezza Rice. And White House counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke, every bit he reminds incessantly in his 2004 memoir, "Against All Enemies," warns anyone who will mind and many who volition not.
With the arrangement "blinking red," as CIA Director George Tenet later told the 9/11 Commission, why were all these warnings non plenty? Wright lingers on bureaucratic failings, emphasizing that intelligence collection on al-Qaeda was hampered by the "institutional warfare" between the CIA and the FBI, 2 agencies that by all accounts were not on speaking terms. Coll writes that Clinton regarded bin Laden every bit "an isolated fanatic, flailing dangerously but quixotically confronting the forces of global progress," whereas the Bush team was fixated on great-power politics, missile defense and China.
Clarke's conclusion is simple, and it highlights America's we-know-better swagger, a national trait that often masquerades equally courage or wisdom. "America, alas, seems simply to reply well to disasters, to be undistracted by warnings," he writes. "Our land seems unable to do all that must be washed until there has been some awful calamity."
The trouble with responding merely to cataclysm is that underestimation is unremarkably replaced by overreaction. And we tell ourselves it is the correct thing, maybe the only matter, to do.
II.
A concluding-minute flying change. A new job at the Pentagon. A retirement from the burn station. The concluding tilt of a plane's wings earlier impact. If the books near the pb-up to 9/11 are packed with unbearable inevitability, the volumes on the mean solar day itself highlight how randomness separated survival from expiry. "The ferocity of the attacks meant that innocent people lived or died considering they stepped dorsum from a doorway, or hopped onto a closing elevator, or simply shifted their weight from ane foot to some other," Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn write in "102 Minutes," their narrative of events within the World Merchandise Middle from the moment the beginning plane hit through the collapse of both towers. Their detailed reporting on the man saga — such every bit a police officeholder request a burn chaplain to hear his confession as they both flee a collapsing building — is excruciating and riveting at once.
Yet, as much as the people within, the structures and history of the World Merchandise Center are primal actors, too. They are not but symbols and targets but fully formed and deeply flawed characters in the day's drama.
[9/xi has go all well-nigh New York — with D.C. and the Pentagon nearly forgotten]
Had the World Trade Centre, congenital in the late 1960s and early on 1970s, been erected co-ordinate to the city building code in consequence since 1938, Dwyer and Flynn explain, "information technology is likely that a very different globe trade heart would accept been built." Instead, information technology was synthetic according to a new lawmaking that the real manor industry had avidly promoted, a lawmaking that made information technology cheaper and more lucrative to build and own skyscrapers. "It increased the floor infinite available for rent . . . past cutting back on the areas that had been devoted, under the before law, to evacuation and go out," the authors write. The result: Getting everybody out on 9/11 was virtually incommunicable.
Under the new rules, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey was able to rent three-quarters of each flooring of the World Trade Center, Dwyer and Flynn report, a 21 percent increase over the yield of older skyscrapers. The cost was dear. Some 1,000 people inside the North Belfry who initially survived the bear on of American Airlines Flight 11 could not reach an open staircase. "Their fate was sealed about iv decades before, when the stairways were clustered in the core of the building, and fire stairs were eliminated as a wasteful use of valuable space." (The authors write that "building code reform hardly makes for gripping drama," an aside as pocket-sized as information technology is inaccurate.) The towers embodied the power of American capitalism, but their pattern embodied the folly of American greed. On that solar day, both conditions proved fatal.
Story continues beneath advertisement
The set on on the Pentagon, long treated as an undercard to New York's main event, could have yielded even greater devastation, and again the details of the building played a office. In his oral history of 9/11, "The Only Plane in the Heaven," Garrett Graff quotes Defense Department officials marveling at how American Airlines Flight 77 struck a part of the Pentagon that, because of new anti-terrorism standards, had recently been reinforced and renovated. This meant it was not but stronger but, on that morning, besides relatively unoccupied. "It was truly a miracle," Army branch chief Philip Smith said. "In any other wedge of the Pentagon, there would have been 5,000 people, and the plane would have flown right through the middle of the building." Instead, fewer than 200 people were killed in the attack on the Pentagon, including the passengers on the hijacked jet. Chance and preparedness came together.
The bravery of police and firefighters is the subject of countless 9/11 retrospectives, but these books also emphasize the selflessness of civilians who morphed into first responders. Port Authorisation workers Frank De Martini, Pablo Ortiz, Carlos da Costa and Peter Negron, for instance, saved at least 70 people in the Earth Merchandise Center'south Due north Tower by pulling autonomously lift doors, busting walls and shining flashlights to observe survivors, simply to non make information technology out themselves. "With crowbar, flashlight, hardhat and big mouths, De Martini and Ortiz and their colleagues had pushed back the boundary line between life and expiry," Dwyer and Flynn write. The authors also note how the double lines of people descending a World Trade Center staircase would automatically alloy into single file when word came down that an injured person was behind them. And Graff cites a local assistant fire chief who recalls the "truly heroic" work of civilians and uniformed personnel at the Pentagon that solar day. "They were the ones who really got their comrades, got their workmates out," he says.
The civilians aboard United Airlines Flying 93, whose resistance forced the plane to crash into a Pennsylvania field rather than the U.S. Capitol, were later lionized equally emblems of swashbuckling Americana. But one offhand particular in the 9/11 Committee written report underscores just how American their defiance was. The passengers had made phone calls when the hijacking began and had learned the fate of other shipping that mean solar day. "According to i call, they voted on whether to rush the terrorists in an attempt to retake the plane," the commission study states. "They decided, and acted."
They voted on it. They voted. Even in that moment of unfathomable fear and distress, the passengers took a moment to engage in the corking American tradition of pop consultation earlier deciding to become this new war'southward earliest soldiers. Was there e'er whatever doubt as to the outcome of that ballot?
Such episodes, led by ordinary civilians, embodied values that the 9/xi Commission called on the nation to display. Except those values would soon be dismantled, in the name of security, past those entrusted to uphold them.
3.
Lawyering to expiry.
The phrase appears in multiple 9/11 volumes, usually uttered past height officials determined that they were going to get things washed, laws and rules be damned. Anti-terrorism efforts were ever "lawyered to death" during the Clinton assistants, Tenet complains in "Bush at War," Bob Woodward'due south 2002 volume on the debates among the president and his national security team. In an interview with Woodward, Bush-league drops the phrase amongst the machospeak — "expressionless or live," "bring 'em on" and the like — that became typical of his anti-terrorism rhetoric. "I had to show the American people the resolve of a commander in main that was going to do whatever it took to win," Bush-league explains. "No yielding. No equivocation. No, yous know, lawyering this affair to decease." In "Confronting All Enemies," Clarke recalls the evening of Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush snapped at an official who suggested that international constabulary looked askance at military force as a tool of revenge. "I don't intendance what the international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass," the president retorted.
The message was unmistakable: The constabulary is an obstacle to effective counterterrorism. Worrying virtually procedural niceties is passe in a ix/11 globe, an annoying impediment to the essential work of ass-kicking.
Except, they did lawyer this matter to expiry. Instead of disregarding the constabulary, the Bush-league administration enlisted information technology. "Beginning virtually immediately after September 11, 2001, [Vice President Dick] Cheney saw to it that some of the sharpest and all-time-trained lawyers in the country, working in hugger-mugger in the White House and the United States Department of Justice, came up with legal justifications for a vast expansion of the authorities'southward power in waging state of war on terror," Jane Mayer writes in "The Dark Side," her relentless 2008 compilation of the arguments and machinations of regime lawyers afterwards the attacks. Through public declarations and secret memos, the administration sought to remove limits on the president's conduct of warfare and to deny terrorism suspects the protections of the Geneva Conventions by redefining them as unlawful enemy combatants. Nothing, Mayer argues of the latter try, "more directly cleared the mode for torture than this."
To comprehend what our authorities can justify in the name of national security, consider the torture memos themselves, authored by the Justice Section's Office of Legal Counsel between 2002 and 2005 to green-light CIA interrogation methods for terrorism suspects. Tactics such as cramped confinement, sleep impecuniousness and waterboarding were rebranded as "enhanced interrogation techniques," legally and linguistically contorted to avoid the label of torture. Though the techniques could be cruel and inhuman, the OLC acknowledged in an August 2002 memo, they would constitute torture only if they produced pain equivalent to organ failure or decease, and if the individual inflicting such hurting really really meant to practise so: "Even if the defendant knows that severe pain will consequence from his actions, if causing such damage is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent." It's quite the sleight of manus, with torture moving from the body of the interrogated to the mind of the interrogator.
Story continues below advertisement
Subsequently devoting dozens of pages to the metaphysics of specific intent, the true meaning of "prolonged" mental harm or "imminent" death, and the elasticity of the Convention Against Torture, the memo concludes that none of it actually matters. Even if a particular interrogation method would cross some legal line, the relevant statute would be considered unconstitutional because information technology "impermissibly encroached" on the commander in chief's authority to conduct warfare. Almost nowhere in these memos does the Justice Department curtail the power of the CIA to practise as it pleases.
In fact, the OLC lawyers rely on assurances from the CIA itself to endorse such powers. In a second memo from Baronial 2002, the lawyers ruminate on the use of cramped confinement boxes. "Nosotros have no information from the medical experts you take consulted that the limited elapsing for which the individual is kept in the boxes causes any substantial concrete pain," the memo states. Waterboarding as well gets a pass. "You take informed us that this procedure does not inflict actual physical harm," the memo states. "Based on your inquiry . . . you do not anticipate that any prolonged mental harm would event from the use of the waterboard."
You take informed united states. Experts you have consulted. Based on your research. Yous do not conceptualize. Such hand-washing words appear throughout the memos. The Justice Department relies on information provided by the CIA to reach its conclusions; the CIA then has the cover of the Justice Department to proceed with its interrogations. It's a perfect circumvolve of trust.
Withal the logic is itself tortured. In a May 2005 memo, the lawyers conclude that because no single technique inflicts "severe" hurting amounting to torture, their combined use "would not be expected" to reach that level, either. As though embarrassed at such illogic, the memo attaches a triple-negative footnote: "We are not suggesting that combinations or repetitions of acts that do not individually cause severe physical pain could not result in astringent physical pain." Well, and so, what exactly are you suggesting? Even when the OLC in 2004 officially withdrew its Baronial 2002 memo following a public outcry and declared torture "abhorrent," the lawyers added a footnote to the new memo assuring that they had reviewed the prior opinions on the treatment of detainees and "practice not believe that any of their conclusions would be different under the standards ready along in this memorandum."
In these documents, lawyers enable lawlessness. Another May 2005 memo concludes that, because the Convention Confronting Torture applies simply to actions occurring under U.S. jurisdiction, the CIA's creation of detention sites in other countries renders the convention "inapplicable." Similarly, considering the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual penalization is meant to protect people convicted of crimes, information technology should non utilise to terrorism detainees — considering they take not been officially bedevilled of anything. The lack of due procedure conveniently eliminates constitutional protections. In his introduction to "The Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable," David Cole describes the documents every bit "bad-faith lawyering," which might be generous. It is another kind of lawyering to death, ane in which the rule of law that the ix/11 Commission urged us to abide by becomes the victim.
Years afterwards, the Senate Intelligence Committee would investigate the CIA'due south postal service-9/11 interrogation program. Its massive report — the executive summary of which appeared as a 549-folio book in 2014 — establish that torture did not produce useful intelligence, that the interrogations were more than brutal than the CIA let on, that the Justice Department did not independently verify the CIA's data, and that the spy agency impeded oversight by Congress and the CIA inspector general. Information technology explains that the CIA purported to oversee itself and, no surprise, that it deemed its interrogations effective and necessary, no affair the results. (If a detainee provided information, it meant the program worked; if he did not, it meant stricter applications of the techniques were needed; if notwithstanding no information was forthcoming, the plan had succeeded in proving he had none to give.)
"The CIA'south effectiveness representations were nigh entirely inaccurate," the Senate report concluded. It is one of the few lies of the war on terror unmasked past an official government investigation and public report, just just i of the many documented in the 9/eleven literature.
IV.
Officials in the war on terror didn't deceive or dissemble just with lawmakers or the public. In the recurring tragedy of state of war, they lied just as often to themselves.
In "To Outset a War: How the Bush-league Administration Took America Into Iraq," Robert Draper considers the influence of the president's top aides. Deputy Defense Secretarial assistant Paul Wolfowitz (long obsessed with ousting Saddam Hussein), Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld (eager to test his theories of military transformation) and Cheney (fixated on apocalyptic visions of America'due south vulnerability) all had their reasons. But Draper identifies a unmarried responsible party: "The decision to invade Iraq was 1 made, finally and exclusively, by the president of the United states of america, George W. Bush," he writes.
A president initially concerned almost defending and preserving the nation's moral goodness against terrorism found himself driven by darker impulses. "I'yard having difficulty decision-making my bloodlust," Bush confessed to religious leaders in the Oval Part on Sept. 20, 2001, Draper reports. It was not a one-off comment; in Woodward'south "Bush at State of war," the president admitted that before nine/11, "I didn't experience that sense of urgency [about al-Qaeda], and my blood was not nigh as humid."
Bloodlust, moral certainty and sudden vulnerability make a dangerous combination. The belief that you are defending proficient against evil can lead to the belief that whatever yous do to that finish is skillful, too. Draper distills Bush'southward worldview: "The terrorists' primary objective was to destroy America'due south freedom. Saddam hated America. Therefore, he hated freedom. Therefore, Saddam was himself a terrorist, bent on destroying America and its freedom."
Annotation the asymmetry. The president assumed the worst about what Hussein had washed or might do, yet embraced best-case scenarios of how an American invasion would proceed. "Iraqis would rejoice at the sight of their Western liberators," Draper recaps. "Their newly shared sense of national purpose would overcome any sectarian allegiances. Their native cleverness would make upward for their inexperience with self-government. They would welcome the stewardship of Iraqi expatriates who had non set human foot in Baghdad in decades. And their oil would pay for everything."
There are lies, then there is self-delusion. The Americans did non have to anticipate the specifics of the civil war that would engulf the land after the invasion; they merely had to realize that managing postwar Iraq would never be as simple as they imagined. Information technology did non seem to occur to Bush and his advisers that Iraqis could simultaneously hate Hussein and resent the Americans — feelings that could accept been discovered by speaking to Iraqis and hearing their concerns.
Anthony Shadid'southward "Night Draws Well-nigh: Republic of iraq's People in the Shadow of America's War," published in 2005, is among the few books on the state of war that gets deep inside Iraqis' aversion to the Americans in their midst. "What gives them the right to change something that's not theirs in the showtime place?" a woman in a heart-class Baghdad neighborhood asks him. "I don't like your house, and then I'1000 going to bomb information technology and you lot tin rebuild information technology once more the fashion I desire information technology, with your coin?" In Fallujah, where Shadid hears early on talk of the Americans equally "kuffar" (heathens), a 51-year-onetime former teacher complains that "we've exchanged a tyrant for an occupier." The occupation did non dissuade such impressions when it turned the onetime dictator'southward seat of government into its ain luxurious Greenish Zone, or when it retrofitted the Abu Ghraib prison ("the worst of Saddam'due south hellholes," Shadid calls it) into its own chamber of horrors.
Shadid understood that governmental legitimacy — who gets to rule, and by what right — was a matter of overriding importance for Iraqis. "The Americans never understood the question," he writes; "Iraqis never agreed on the answer." It's hard to detect a meliorate summation of the trials of Iraq in the aftermath of America's invasion. When the The states and so chop-chop shifted from liberation to occupation, it lost whatever legitimacy it enjoyed. "Bush-league handed that enemy precisely what it wanted and needed, proof that America was at war with Islam, that we were the new Crusaders come to occupy Muslim country," Clarke writes. "It was as if Usama bin Laden, subconscious in some loftier mountain redoubt, were engaging in long-range mind control of George Bush, chanting 'invade Iraq, y'all must invade Republic of iraq.' "
[The Pentagon's Obsession With Animus]
The foolishness and arrogance of the American occupation didn't help. In "Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Republic of iraq's Green Zone," Rajiv Chandrasekaran explains how, even as daily security was Iraqis' overwhelming concern, viceroy L. Paul Bremer, Bush-league'south man in Baghdad, was determined to plow the state into a model free-marketplace economic system, complete with new investment laws, bankruptcy courts and a land-of-the-art stock exchange. In charge of the new exchange was a 24-year-old American with no academic background in economic science or finance. The human being tasked with remaking Iraq's sprawling university arrangement had no feel in the Center East — but did have connections to the Rumsfeld and Cheney families. A new traffic police for Iraq was partially cut and pasted from Maryland'southward motor vehicle lawmaking. An antismoking campaign was led by a U.S. official who was a closet smoker. And a U.S. Army general, when asked past local journalists why American helicopters must fly so depression at dark, thus scaring Iraqi children, replied that the kids were but hearing "the sound of liberty."
Message: Liberty sounds terrifying.
For some Americans, inflicting that terror became function of the job, one more tool in the armory. In "The Forever War" by Dexter Filkins, a U.Due south. Army lieutenant colonel in Iraq assures the author that "with a heavy dose of fright and violence, and a lot of money for projects, I think we can convince these people that we are here to aid them." (Filkins asked him if he really meant it about fearfulness and violence; the officer insisted that he did.) Of course, not all officials were so deluded and and then forthright; some knew improve only lied to the public. Chandrasekaran recalls the response of a top communications official under Bremer, when reporters asked well-nigh waves of violence hit Baghdad in the jump of 2004. "Off the record: Paris is called-for," the official told the journalists. "On the record: Security and stability are returning to Iraq."
In "The Ascent and Fall of Osama bin Laden," Bergen sums up how the Iraq State of war, conjured in part on the fake connections betwixt Iraq and al-Qaeda, ended up helping the terrorist network: It pulled resources from the war in Transitional islamic state of afghanistan, gave infinite for bin Laden's men to regroup and spurred a new generation of terrorists in the Centre East. "A bigger gift to bin Laden was hard to imagine," Bergen writes.
If Iraq was the war born of lies, Afghanistan was the one nurtured by them. Afghanistan was where al-Qaeda, supported by the Taliban, had fabricated its base of operations — information technology was supposed to be the good war, the right war, the war of necessity and not option, the state of war endorsed at home and abroad. "U.South. officials had no demand to lie or spin to justify the war," Washington Post reporter Craig Whitlock writes in "The Afghanistan Papers," a damning dissimilarity of the war's reality vs. its rhetoric. "Nevertheless leaders at the White House, the Pentagon and the Country Department soon began to make imitation assurances and to paper over setbacks on the battleground." As the years passed, the deceit became entrenched, what Whitlock calls "an unspoken conspiracy" to hibernate the truth.
Story continues below advertisement
Cartoon from a "Lessons Learned" project that interviewed hundreds of military and civilian officials involved with Afghanistan, also every bit from oral histories, authorities cables and reports, Whitlock finds commanding generals privately admitting that they long fought the state of war "without a functional strategy." That, ii years into the conflict, Rumsfeld complained that he had "no visibility into who the bad guys are." That Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, a erstwhile coordinator of Iraq and Afghanistan policy, best-selling that "we didn't take the foggiest thought of what we were undertaking." That U.S. officials long wanted to withdraw American forces but feared — correctly so, it turns out — that the Afghan government might collapse. "Bin Laden had hoped for this exact scenario," Whitlock observes. "To lure the U.Southward. superpower into an unwinnable guerrilla conflict that would deplete its national treasury and diminish its global influence."
All along, top officials publicly contradicted these internal views, issuing favorable accounts of steady progress. Bad news was twisted into proficient: Rising suicide attacks in Kabul meant the Taliban was also weak for directly combat, for instance, while increased U.Due south. casualties meant America was taking the fight to the enemy. The skills and size of the Afghan security forces were oft exaggerated; by the stop of President Barack Obama's second term, U.Southward. officials concluded that some xxx,000 Afghan soldiers on the payroll didn't actually exist; they were paper creations of local commanders who pocketed the simulated soldiers' salaries at U.South. taxpayer expense. American officials publicly lamented large-scale corruption in Afghanistan but enabled that corruption in practice, pouring massive contracts and projects into a country ill-equipped to absorb them. Such deceptions transpired across U.S. presidents, just the Obama administration, eager to testify that its outset-term troop surge was working, "took it to a new level, hyping figures that were misleading, spurious or downright false," Whitlock writes. And and so nether President Donald Trump, he adds, the generals felt pressure to "speak more than forcefully and avowal that his war strategy was destined to succeed."
Long before President Biden declared the end of the U.S. state of war in Afghanistan this summer, the United states of america twice made similar pronouncements, proclaiming the determination of combat operations in 2003 and again in 2014 — withal nonetheless the war endured. It did then in role because "in public, almost no senior government officials had the courage to admit that the Us was slowly losing," Whitlock writes. "With their complicit silence, military and political leaders avoided accountability and dodged reappraisals that could have changed the consequence or shortened the disharmonize."
It's not like nobody warned them. In "Bush at War," Woodward reports that CIA Counterterrorism Heart Director Cofer Black and Deputy Secretarial assistant of State Richard Armitage traveled to Moscow presently after 9/11 to give officials a heads up nigh the coming hostilities in Transitional islamic state of afghanistan. The Russians, recent visitors to the graveyard of empires, cautioned that Afghanistan was an "ambush sky" and that, in the words of ane of them, "you're really going to get the hell kicked out of you lot." Cofer responded confidently: "We're going to impale them. . . . We're going to stone their world."
Now, with U.Southward. forces gone and the Taliban having reclaimed power in Afghanistan, Washington is wrestling with the legacy of the nation's longest war. Why and how did America lose? Should we have stayed longer? Was it worth its price in blood and billions? How does the United States repay the courage of Afghans who worked aslope U.Southward. armed forces and noncombatant authorities? What if Afghanistan again becomes a haven for terrorists attacking U.Due south. interests and allies, as the airport suicide bombing in Kabul that killed 13 U.South. service members last month may signal? Biden has asserted that "the war in Transitional islamic state of afghanistan is now over" but has also pledged to continue the fight against terrorists there — so what are the limits and the means of future U.S. military machine and intelligence action in the land?
These are essential debates, but a war should not be measured only by the timing and the competence of its cease. We still face an equally consequential appraisal: How good was this proficient state of war if it could be sustained simply by lies?
V.
In the two decades since the 9/11 attacks, the U.s.a. has often attempted to reconsider its response. Take two documents from late 2006: the report from the Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton, which argued that Washington needed to radically rethink its diplomatic and political strategy for Republic of iraq; and "The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Transmission," written by a team led by and then-Regular army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, which argued that U.Due south. officials needed to radically rethink military tactics for insurgency wars of the kind it faced in Iraq and Transitional islamic state of afghanistan.
They are written as though intending to solve problems. But they can exist read every bit proof that the problems have no realistic solution, or that the but solution is to never take created them.
"There is no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq," the ISG report begins, yet its proposed fixes would have required enough of fairy dust. The report calls for a "diplomatic offensive" to gain international support for Iraq, to persuade Iran and Syria to respect Iraq's territory and sovereignty, and to commit to "a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts." Uncomplicated! Iraq, meanwhile, needed to make progress on national reconciliation (in a state already brimful in sectarian bloodletting), boost domestic security (even though the written report deems the Iraqi army a mess and the Iraqi police worse) and deliver social services (even as the report concludes that the government was failing to adequately provide electricity, drinking water, sewage services and education).
The recommendations seem written in the knowledge that they volition never happen. "Miracles cannot be expected," the report states — twice. Absent-minded divine intervention, the adjacent step is obvious. If the Iraqi authorities can't demonstrate "substantial progress" toward its goals, the report asserts, "the United States should reduce its political, armed forces, or economic support" for Iraq. Indeed, the report sets the bar for staying so loftier that an get out strategy appears to be its chief purpose.
The counterinsurgency transmission is an extraordinary certificate. Implicitly repudiating notions such every bit "shock and awe" and "overwhelming force," information technology argues that the primal to battling an insurgency in countries such equally Republic of iraq and Transitional islamic state of afghanistan is to provide security for the local population and to win its back up through constructive governance. It too attempts to grasp the nature of America's foes. "Nearly enemies either practice not try to defeat the United States with conventional operations or do not limit themselves to purely military ways," the manual states. "They know that they cannot compete with U.Southward. forces on those terms. Instead, they effort to frazzle U.Due south. national will." Exhausting America's volition is an objective that al-Qaeda understood well.
"Soldiers and Marines are expected to exist nation builders as well every bit warriors," the manual proclaims, but the arduous tasks involved — reestablishing authorities institutions, rebuilding infrastructure, strengthening local security forces, enforcing the rule of law — reveal the tension at the middle of the new doctrine. "Counterinsurgents should set up for a long-term commitment," the manual states. Yet, merely a few pages afterward, it admits that "eventually all foreign armies are seen as interlopers or occupiers." How to accomplish the former without descending into the latter? No wonder so many of the historical examples of counterinsurgency that the manual highlights, including accounts from the Vietnam War, are stories of failure.
The manual seems aware of its importance. The 2007 edition contains a foreword, followed by an introduction, then another foreword, a preface, then some brief acknowledgments and finally one more than introduction. (Just reaching Chapter 1 feels like defeating an insurgency.) But the pharynx-clearing is clarifying. In his foreword, Army Lt. Col. John Nagl writes that the certificate'due south nigh lasting touch may be as a catalyst not for remaking Iraq or Afghanistan, but for transforming the Army and Marine Corps into "more effective learning organizations," improve able to adapt to irresolute warfare. And in her introduction, Sarah Sewall, then managing director of Harvard's Carr Heart for Human Rights Policy, concludes that its "ultimate value" may exist in alert civilian officials to think hard earlier engaging in a counterinsurgency campaign.
At best, and so, the manual helps united states of america rethink future conflicts — how we fight and whether we should. It's no coincidence that Biden, in his Aug. 16 remarks defending the decision to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan, specifically repudiated counterinsurgency equally an objective of U.South. policy. "I've argued for many years that our mission should be narrowly focused on counterterrorism, not counterinsurgency or nation-building," the president affirmed. Even the longest war was not long enough for a animus effort to succeed.
In his 2009 book, "The Skillful Soldiers," David Finkel chronicles the experiences of an Regular army battalion deployed in Republic of iraq during the U.S. troop surge in 2007 and 2008, a period of the war ostensibly informed by the new counterinsurgency doctrine. In his 2013 sequel, "Thank you for Your Service," the writer witnesses these men when they come home and try to make sense of their military experience and adapt to their new lives. "The thing that got to everyone," Finkel explains in the latter volume, "was not having a defined front line. It was a war in 360 degrees, no front to advance toward, no enemy in compatible, no predictable patterns, no relief." It's a powerful summation of battling an insurgency.
Adam Schumann returns from war because of mail service-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, "the result of a mortar circular that dropped without warning out of a bluish sky," Finkel explains. Schumann suffers from nightmares, headaches and guilt; he wishes he needed bandages or crutches, anything to visibly justify his absence from the forepart. His wife endures his treatments, his anger, his ambivalence toward life. "He's still a good guy," she decides. "He's merely a broken good guy." Another returning soldier, Nic DeNinno, struggles to tell his married woman virtually the time he and his swain soldiers burst into an Iraqi home in search of a high-value target. He threw a homo down the stairs and held another by the pharynx. After they left, the lieutenant told him it was the incorrect firm. "The wrong f---ing business firm," Nic says to his wife. "Ane of the things I want to remember is how many times we hit the incorrect house."
Hit the wrong house is what counterinsurgency doctrine is supposed to avoid. Even successfully capturing or killing a loftier-value target tin exist counterproductive if in the process you terrorize a community and create more than enemies. In Iraq, the whole country was the wrong house. America's leaders knew it was the wrong business firm. They hit it anyway.
VI.
In the 11th chapter of the ix/xi Commission report, just before all the recommendations for reforms in domestic and foreign policy, the authors go philosophical, pondering how hindsight had afflicted their views of Sept. xi, 2001. "As fourth dimension passes, more documents become available, and the bare facts of what happened get nevertheless clearer," the report states. "Yet the picture of how those things happened becomes harder to reimagine, as that past globe, with its preoccupations and doubtfulness, recedes." Before making definitive judgments, then, they ask themselves "whether the insights that seem credible now would really have been meaningful at the fourth dimension."
It's a commendable attitude, one that helps readers understand what the attacks felt like in real time and why government responded equally they did. But that approach also keeps the 24-hour interval trapped in the past, safely distant. 2 of the latest additions to the catechism, "Reign of Terror" past Spencer Ackerman and "Subtle Tools" by Karen Greenberg, draw straight, stark lines betwixt the primeval days of the war on terror and its mutations in our current time, between conflicts abroad and divisions at home. These works show how 9/eleven remains with us, and how we are all the same living in the ruins.
When Trump alleged that "nosotros don't take victories anymore" in his 2015 voice communication announcing his presidential candidacy, he was both belittling the legacy of ix/11 and harnessing it to his ends. "His keen insight was that the jingoistic politics of the War on Terror did not take to be tied to the War on Terror itself," Ackerman writes. "That enabled him to tell a tale of lost greatness." And if greatness is lost, someone must take taken it. The backlash against Muslims, against immigrants crossing the southern border and against protesters rallying for racial justice was strengthened past the open up-ended nature of the global war on terror. In Ackerman's vivid telling — his prose can be hyperbolic, even if his arguments are not — the war is not simply far away in Iraq or Afghanistan, in Yemen or Syria, but it's happening here, with mass surveillance, militarized law enforcement and the rebranding of immigration equally a threat to the nation'due south security rather than a cornerstone of its identity. "Trump had learned the foremost lesson of 9/eleven," Ackerman writes, "that the terrorists were whomever you said they were."
Both Ackerman and Greenberg signal to the Authority for Apply of Military Force, drafted by assistants lawyers and canonical by Congress but days after the attacks, as the moment when America'southward response began to go awry. The brief joint resolution allowed the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force" confronting any nation, organization or person who committed the attacks, and to prevent whatever future ones. It was the "Ur document in the war on terror and its legacy," Greenberg writes. "Riddled with imprecision, its terminology was geared to codify expansive powers." Where the battlefield, the enemy and the definition of victory all remain vague, war becomes endlessly expansive, "with neither temporal nor geographical boundaries."
This was the moment the war on terror was "conceptually doomed," Ackerman concludes. This is how you lot get a forever state of war.
Story continues beneath advertisement
In that location were moments when an off-ramp was visible. The killing of bin Laden in 2011 was one such instance, Ackerman argues, merely "Obama squandered the best hazard anyone could e'er have to end the ix/11 era." The writer assails Obama for making the war on terror more "sustainable" through a veneer of legality — banning torture notwithstanding failing to shut the detention camp at Guantánamo Bay and relying on drone strikes that "perversely incentivized the war machine and the CIA to kill instead of capture." There would always be more targets, more than battlefields, regardless of president or party. Failures became the reason to double down, never wind down.
The longer the state of war went on, the more than that what Ackerman calls its "grotesque subtext" of nativism and racism would motility to the foreground of American politics. Absent-minded the state of war on terror, it is harder to imagine a presidential candidate decrying a sitting commander in chief as foreign, Muslim, illegitimate — and using that lie equally a successful political platform. Absent the war on terror, information technology is harder to imagine a travel ban against people from Muslim-majority countries. Absent the war on terror, it is harder to imagine American protesters labeled terrorists, or a secretary of defense force describing the nation'due south urban streets as a "battle space" to exist dominated. Trump was a disruptive force in American life, but there was much continuity in that location, too. "A vastly unlike America has taken root" in the ii decades since 9/11, Greenberg writes. "In the proper name of retaliation, 'justice,' and prevention, fundamental values have been cast aside."
In his latest book on bin Laden, Bergen argues that 9/11 was a major tactical success just a long-term strategic failure for the terrorist leader. Yes, he struck a vicious blow against "the caput of the snake," equally he called the Usa, just "rather than ending American influence in the Muslim world, the 9/eleven attacks greatly amplified it," with two lengthy, big-scale invasions and new bases established throughout the region.
Nonetheless the legacy of the 9/xi era is found not just in Afghanistan or Iraq, but likewise in an America that drew out and heightened some of its ugliest impulses — a nation that is deeply divided (similar those "separated states" bin Laden imagined); that bypasses inconvenient facts and embraces conspiracy theories; that demonizes outsiders; and that, after failing to spread freedom and commonwealth around the world, seems less inclined to uphold them here. More Americans today are concerned about domestic extremism than foreign terrorism, and on Jan. vi, 2021, our own citizens assaulted the Capitol building that al-Qaeda hoped to strike on Sept. eleven, 2001. Seventeen years later on the 9/11 Commission chosen on the United States to offer moral leadership to the world and to exist generous and caring to our neighbors, our moral leadership is in question, and we tin barely be generous and caring to ourselves.
In "The Forever State of war," Dexter Filkins describes a nation in which "something had broken fundamentally after and so many years of state of war . . . at that place had been some kind of primal dislocation betwixt crusade and effect, a numbness wholly understandable, necessary even, given the pain." He was writing of Afghanistan, but his words could double every bit an interpretation of the United States over the by ii decades. Still reeling from an attack that dropped out of a blue sky, America is suffering from a sort of post-traumatic stress commonwealth. It remains in recovery, even so a good country, even if a broken adept country.
About this story
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/interactive/2021/911-books-american-values/
0 Response to "Could an Attack Like 9 11 Happen Again in Us"
Post a Comment