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.

The Basic Rules of Conflict

Rifles for Peace 18

Military conflicts, no matter who hosts them or what the prize might be, are habitually fought at levels. There are players who involve themselves -- or, in fact, instigate the matter -- for the final incentive of great material gains, usually the control of resources or stabilized power for all sorts of advantage. There are the others, aside from the plebiscite who inevitably make the armies of the ambitious, who will struggle to resist the reassignment of wealth sought by the former, commonly those with control of such advantages at the outset.

In the isolated calm of the United States we receive the news of such conflicts portrayed as abstractions. And not, by the way, as innocent portrayals. Our images are always constructed from the fabric of the implied interests of the participants if not outrightly as their conveniently named ideologies. National sincerity which would reasonably be directed at the man with his finger on the trigger or the man with the new bullet hole in his chest is de-energized as these players are replaced with speech makers and bar charts estimating the change in ownership of, well, everything involved.

We indulge media focused on the reasons for conflict rather than the results of it. As a consequence, we willingly make the assumption that the whole affair is little more than a misunderstanding, one we could correct if only all those at war weren’t so mistakenly head strong. Or religious. Or hungry. Or thirsty. Or even, perhaps, if these victims didn’t mind so much when they were raped. Or enslaved. Or made into refugees. Sometimes, there is not enough of anything for both sides to have what they need.

Oh, it all seems so intractable! We simply must take sides or miss the opportunity to flaunt our sterile high ground. Yet, all these people are so difficult! Our historical national maturity makes the enticing suggestion that it might be better to let them get it all out of their systems. After all, in every case future peace has begun with the stink of the moments after the battles have ended.

Is there a possibility of ending it? We seem, as a nation, unable to rise above our greed long enough to make much of a contribution. Every time it appears that we are ready to help, we see the same depressing old style U.S. subterfuge. Fifteen billion dollars for AIDS in Africa seemed like a truly high-borne idea. Yet, we find contracts for the most expensive drugs from our U.S. suppliers. We see a nifty new trade agreement with India to stop producing generics. We see a grotesque President with his erectile fascination with abstinence.

Is anyone else embarrassed?

There might be a solution arriving on this troubled scene -- one materializing from an unlikely quarter. Returning to this violent inclination infecting our world, we have always been, at least we have said we were, strong proponents for disarmament. Gee, if we could initiate a cease fire and follow it up with a major dose of “turning in” weapons, peace might break out in these four hundred or so constant local wars.

Perhaps the solution lies in driving these ugly little situations in a different direction. Instead of disarming the combatants, perhaps we should consider arming them!

Now, with existing technology this might seem to a bit of a stretch. However, with new technology there might be, at least, a fleeting promise of making sense from some of this chaos. After all, what is going on now is a picture of refugees, rape victims and other war torn civilians. Military violence has a special attraction when one side is heavily out gunned in the conflict. This idea holds true whether you find the conflict in the deepest jungles of Africa or in the first class section of a hijacked air liner. Indulging either temptation turns out to be much less “manly” when everyone can shoot back!

Yet, pouring guns into unstable regions, at least guns in the current sense of the word, can guarantee and endless struggle. Placing guns, again guns in the current sense of the word in the hands of every airline passenger, would probably evoke all sorts of mischief. We will need different guns!

Visit the train wreck at Darfur. Supply them all with weapons and ammunition, but supply them with weapons which can last no longer than one year. At the end of their usable cycle, these guns become permanently worthless. During the year, put such a rifle in the hands of the woman who was raped and beaten on the way to her watering hole. See if conditions change.

Weapons such as these could probably never be used in much of an offensive way [there is still the issue of ammunition supplies]. On the other hand, slugs pass through the bodies of bullies with the same effect as they do when passing through the bodies of civilians.

As for the jet liners. Put a pouch under the tray table. It is locked until the pilot throws a panic switch in the cockpit. Then it falls open, placing an airline version of a single shot, gas cartridge driven weapon in the hands of every passenger. It fires a tumbling plastic bullet that cannot penetrate the shell of the fuselage, but can penetrate the body of a hijacker.

Gee whiz! Can we think that passengers could handle this? Possibly the young men, perhaps soldiers on the way home, but never the old man who has already had a couple of beers or the old lady who was doing her knitting just before the mad man took over. Gosh, some of them would miss! Darn, some of them would never do it!

On the other hand, if you were a nervous hijacker and you suddenly saw twenty or thirty of these little guns pointing at you from the passenger seats in the plane, well, it might change the way things turned out in the end.

Arms for peace? Why not?