Why Not Revisit 9/11 Seven Years Later?

Messages and lessons we must not neglect.
The 9/11 Attack seen through the eyes in three faces. 56

On the seventh anniversary of the attack of 9/11, 2001, only the most callous can avoid the inevitable mix of both consolation and cause. There were causes which precipitated the attack. There were causes which precipitated the responses to it. Are we finally, after seven years, prepared to examine this again in the cold -- and far less emotional -- light of the present day?

Perhaps the clearest view can be expressed by attempting to place ourselves in the momentary place of players far closer to the event. Let us indulge ourselves with speculation as to the thoughts of three people. First, of course, ourselves; next, a nondescript, common citizen of Baghdad and, finally, Osama Bin Laden.

As we watched the catastrophe in New York and, minutes later, at the Pentagon, we took the moment to invest in an uneducated but comforting question. “Why is this happening? Why are ‘they’ doing this to us?”

We have a certain sickening feeling when we recall the answer to that question, an answer which seemed to fulfill all the requirements of common sense and non-nutritious nationalism. “They hate our freedom.” That “sickening feeling” can, more constructively, be called objective remorse. After all this time we have come to know much more about why that attack was possible, and probably, even inevitable.

There were reasons which explained it, but now we realize that those were reasons we had never considered. Our intellectual curiosity, prior to the attack, was never sufficient to explore just exactly what we had done to them, or, at least, what we had done to them as it appeared through their eyes.

The matter called me to revisit the chilling admonition of a certain Marine officer. He said, “If you find yourself in the midst of a shooting match, and, if you have no clear idea of why the other guy is shooting at you, that is, no idea of what he wants, leave. You have no business there.” My conclusion: “If those are the facts of the moment, the matter has no meaning and no possible constructive outcome.”

Next, a visit -- some months after 9/11 -- to Baghdad. “Shock and awe,” evaluated by the military command of Sadam Hussein’s army had one interpretation, possibly a tactical one, devoid of very much legitimate or popular social politics. “Shock and awe” interpreted by the man walking home in the streets of that distant city has another. Unavoidably, we must assume that he had certain questions in his mind as he ran for his life. “Why is this happening? Why are ‘they’ doing this to us?”

Finally, we stop over for a moment in some chilly cave, the uncomfortable refuge of the perpetrator and planner of the attacks in New York and Washington. Osama Bin Laden is not wondering “Why is this happening? Why are ‘they’ doing this to us?” at all. He has either had reasons or made reasons to answer those questions already. His reasons and his answers had already served to inspire all those young men who were willing to sacrifice everything to carry out his deathly mission in the United States.

Could there have been more to that remote conversation and planning than a “hatred of our freedom?” Did the “wrongs and injuries” that convinced those boys of the necessity of this, amount to something more substantial? Something we missed in the history of our own behavior? Or, at least, something we had assiduously avoided ever noticing?

Here in the United States, we were not allowed to even offer a conjecture that their suicidal passion had any meaning whatsoever. Far be it from us to even speculate, much less investigate, the possibility that we found ourselves involved in an exchange of consequences instead of a crazed act of psychopathic killing frenzy.

History makes its future concrete not from sand and cement, but from details and subtleties. It also makes strange bed fellows. It pays wages to the unlikely in currencies which have value only as a result of their moment of existence. Through this dark chapter, the least deserving, that is, Bin Laden and his counterpart, George Bush, have reaped unanticipated, synergistic extra profits.

Osama Bin Laden had little interest in military success. His satisfaction came from the fear he created. Injuring the United States, for him, could be far more substantial if he could degrade our Constitution and our social fabric. He, undoubtedly, celebrated in whatever way was correct to his religion, when the Americans made “shock and awe” over Baghdad, a serendipitous and unplanned extra benefit to his initial ambitions with the jet liners.

George Bush, likewise, was handed a birthday cake without a birthday. Those falling buildings could be converted by his servant, Carl Rove, into political octane of a stratospheric quality he never imagined. Out came “cut and run” and “stay the course,” all hypnotic invitations to endorse his oil wars and his morbid, domestic machinations and propaganda. If his rich friends made their fortunes drilling out petroleum made by ancient swamps, Bush made his by ruthlessly harvesting the unexpected opportunities of this modern moment.

9/11 calls us to our own inner thoughts. What, exactly, have we as individuals concluded about the facts of this tragic matter? Are we able, or, are we willing, to attempt to examine the unmanipulated reality of this whole affair, now, with clearer heads seven years later?

Perhaps, we are simply too busy or too shallow or too comfortable in this current cess pool of nationalistic drivel and fear. Perhaps, we will need to repeat what we have done previously, experience more “baffling” consequences of it, before we are motivated to consider changing ourselves and our national behavior. This improved destiny will probably never be the result of our fear. It will much more likely be an honest return from our rediscovered honor.

Election Strategy: Bomb Iran

Why Did the Chicken or the Egg Cross the Road First?

Iranian Missle Tests: The Axis of Evil Comes to Call 40

As suggested in the title, it is occasionally difficult to determine whether certain phenomena are the cause of the effect. In some cases it seems straightforwrd enough, but in others no amount of careful thought seems to render any sort of reasonable decision at all.

Moving forward from that abstraction, we will consider the “phenomenon” of Iran’s sudden and intensely aggressive posture with respect to us. This most recent event isn’t really that mysterious. Our “Axis of Evil” talk a few State of the Union speeches ago, our undoubtedly disconcerting habit of “parking” nuclear aircraft carriers either a little closer or a little farther from Iran at various times, the provocative presence of the US army in the oil swamp of Iraq and the “entirely spontaneous” Isreali public position of its open retaliation are more than enough to inspire Iran’s actual government’s interest in being threatening in response. By “actual government” we mean, of course, the slightly medieval Islamic religionists who replaced the Shah, that is, our Shah Palavi.

Recent history sheds little light on this puzzle. About the time we decided to invade Afghanistan and capture Bin Laden, essentially this same Iranian government was quite cooperative. We were told that the Taleban, a group bearing an amazingly similar DNA profile with Al Queda, was a “blood enemy” of the Shi’ites in Iran. Given the prevailing competition between Sunnis and Shi’ites throughout the region, this media presentation was pretty palatable for our domestic consumption. We literally "gobbled" it down.

Yum.

However, not too much later, our “ally” during the Afghan incursion had converted itself to the “Axis of Evil.” The new media presentation is that these Iranians hate America and have done everything possible to make trouble everywhere they can in the Middle East.

A problem arises from all this. Of course, we can hardly wish to spend any more time considering the news reports. Their credibility has long ago been castrated by a terrified administration that fears and distrusts the American people more than the Iranians, or anyone else. This leaves us quietly speculating about what the actual situation might be, more or less isolated from any information that could possibly help in our considerations.

All that would be comfortably academic if a “certain somebody” weren’t still considering “nuking the hell” out of these people in our name then staggering out of the White House having accomplished the ingestion of a treasonous “poison pill” for our national security. The 9/11 attack, regardless of which conspiracy actually delivered it, has been this administration’s closest, and now, only, friend, but the burning World Trade Centers have become a bit road weary. Still, even though a dismally slow learner, Mr. Bush did notice that there was simply nothing more politically valuable than an insane enemy. After convincing half of the voting population that Sadam had bombed those buildings, a Texas style hanging in Baghdad has left the “cupboad bare” with respect to his next adversary.

Meet Iran.

The question: Does this disaster have anything to do with George Bush’s lies about it? There is the possibility that even in his twisted, self-serving statements, some kernel of fact has actually sneaked through and that these Iranians are, perhaps, as crazy and intractable as he proposes.

On the other hand, it is perhaps equally likely that the Iranians are responding to him. Now, now. Yes it stinks, but a proposition such as that one really must be an exaggeration! The enmity expressed toward us by Iran couldn’t possibly have been caused by a single American, not even one holding the Presidency with such calloused credentials. Even if this were a factor, the inertia of these events is still far greater than any possible Iranian response to a single man. George Bush could not possibly have precipitated this colosal disaster on the sole strength of his creepy character alone.

Well, perhaps not in a population like the one here in this country, but the government and the population of Iran simply don’t know him that well. It would be very nice to be able to tell them, “Although President Bush may be rather unsettling, please, he isn’t going to just attack someone out of mid air based on no more than his own secret (oil) reasons.” We might continue with, “The United States is a nation of laws. Sure, the President is very powerful, but something as egregious as this would simply be beyond even his most blood thirsty ambitions.”

But would that be honest on our part? He really might attack them based on the exact personality defects they fear the most. He seems to have purposely created the crisis to replace the lackluster memory of New York. He has certainly learned that his disasterous military adventures usually look pretty good to the American voters, at least until he starts losing again. And, finally, the time line is almost perfect. An attack on Iran might actually look fairly successful for the period between here and the election.

None of this is particularly calming to the Iranians. Darn, we were only trying to reassure them that we weren’t all as brutally selfish and ambitious as our alleged President. You know. Just like all Muslims aren't terrorists.