I understand the point of view that sees 9/11 as some kind of retaliation against U.S. foreign policy. Where I TOTALLY disagree with it is how it was designed to kill as many civilians as possible. That's what woke me up about these terrorists.
Although I agree with this - that 9/11 certainly was a wake-up call to the United States that it could no longer afford to be so blasé about the terrorist threat it faced - it is also bitterly ironic that this would turn out to be the principal justification for war against Iraq.
Just last night, I watched a documentary about the search for survivors in the voids and rubble of the WTC, and to this day, the connection between Iraq and 9/11 is still being erroneously (and strongly) made. However, it's a travesty that this wake-up call (to a very real threat) was deliberately subverted and hugely exaggerated, especially where the 'clear and present danger posed by Iraq' was concerned. In reality, it seems that wake-up call was delivered (the attacks), half-heartedly addressed (the botched hunt for Bin Laden in Afghanistan) and then completely ignored and subverted into a justification to invade Iraq.
It is no lie to say that Bush brazenly used the 9/11 terrorist attacks to justify war against Iraq - despite there being no actual connection between the attacks and Iraq whatsoever. The bitter, even cruel, irony is that where no
terrorist threat once existed in Iraq (if indeed
any threat to the US existed at all), there definitely is a major terrorist risk to US interests in the Middle East from terrorists based in Iraq
now. The sad fact is that the WTC attacks were a genuine terrorist atrocity, but the mistaken link between Saddam Hussein and his supposed sponsorship of international terrorism has caused a huge and very real growth in the terrorist threat faced by everyone in the region.
From a personal point of view, I'd go as far as to say this - that the memory and the dignity of those who died on 9/11 has been (to atleast some extent) dishonoured by the way in which their deaths have been used as an excuse to invade a country that had nothing to do with these events. Also, and much more significantly, the nature of the response to the attacks in general have done little to reduce the real threat of future attacks. That for me is the biggest shame, and although I say nothing about US foreign policy or the real reasons for invading Iraq, one thing I'm unrepentant about is that I believe George W. Bush and his neo-con cronies should hang their collective heads in shame for presiding over such an utter travesty - both in their complete ineptitude to respond quickly and firmly enough in Afghanistan, and for compounding this gross error by focusing on and demonising Saddam Hussein (who did a fairly good job of that all by himself)...
I agree in essence with Danoff that partisan politics are largely irrelevant here - however, whatever the party in charge of coordinating and carrying out the nation's response was, they had a responsibility to
do it right, and 6 years down the line the verdict is looking more and more like a resounding FAIL for the Bush administration. Republican or Democrat, American or non-American, theist or athiest - we, the innocent civilians of this world, were shocked and disgusted by these attacks, and that's why we expect(ed) a focused and concerted response against those who planned and sponsored these terrible acts. But that is not what we got.
