It's 10 years since our Afghan War began, and ten-plus years since 9/11.
Most Americans, according to two new polls, don't think we should be doing what we're doing in Afghanistan, or that the war effort has been worth it. Every week, there are major fiascoes in Afghanistan. But Osama bin Laden has found his eternal rest far beneath the surface of the Arabian Sea, courtesy of the U.S. Navy SEALs. So bin Laden still lost, right?
Yes. And no. Mostly no.
Bin Laden, of course, is, on the one hand, a very definitive loser. For one thing, he is quite dead, killed in a daring Navy SEAL raid that ranks as one of the most outstanding operations in the history of American arms, and with his organizational cadre nearly shattered. For another, despite massive exertions, his dream of a caliphate embracing the Muslim world lies in tatters. Not one of the Arab governments he hated has fallen to fundamentalist Islam. The awakening sweeping the Arab world springs largely from far different roots. (With the obvious caveat that history plays out not in the space of a Tweet but over time in complex ways and the final outcome of this year's upheaval remains unclear.)
The cadre and leadership of al Qaeda have been decimated by America's intelligence war against it. Copycat organizations have sprung up, but seem to lack the global reach of the original.
And yet, Osama bin Laden may be the man who crashed the world. With a great deal of help from not unpredictable actions on the part of his enemies.
Even after watching video of his curiously unaesthetic Pakistan abode, viewing and listening to his messianic recordings, reading his statements and the accounts by others of his actions and life, it's still hard to know exactly how far-sighted a figure bin Laden was.
Did he see that his strike on 9/11 would prod America into undertaking not one but two massive military interventions? That it would destabilize the Middle East? That it would exact massive costs on the U.S. economy? That it would change American life?
If bin Laden had any sense of that, of how America's leadership was likely to react and the chain of causation that would bring, he knew that he was one of history's most successful agents of chaos long before the Navy finally came knocking on or rather down his door.
* Draining the economy and busting the budget. How much do the response to 9/11 and the Iraq and Afghan Wars cost? It looks to be as much as $4 trillion. That includes the physical damage and immediate economic impact of the attacks, but the bulk of it by far is by the massive costs of the wars, future veteran care, and homeland security.
That doesn't include the cost of higher oil prices due to an increased geopolitical risk premium.
It's all far more than then Vice President Dick Cheney's assurance that Iraq would cost only $100 billion.
Since the Bush/Cheney Administration decided to fund the wars on borrowed money, the Clinton/Gore budget surplus quickly turned into a big budget deficit.
The direct cost also does not include the illusory housing and financial boom that the administration fostered in the wake of the shock of 9/11. That turned so disastrously bust that the entire world has been shaken to its roots.
* Destabilizing the Middle East and fostering a new generation of jihadists. Saddam Hussein was one of history's great villains. He was also the regional check on Iran's ambitions, having fought a long, large, and largely inconclusive war with the ayatollahs.
He had nothing to do with 9/11, but Dick Cheney and George W. Bush wanted him out, so 9/11 and some spun-up intel provided enough of a pretext to invade.
Removing Saddam empowered Iran, both within Iraq -- which seems to have come as a surprise to the invasion's architects -- and within the region. A bolder Iran, with its traditional anti-Israel rhetoric, gave rise to Israel's most right-wing government in its history. Which in turn fed policies further isolating Israel from its neighbors and, of course, any accord with the Palestinians. Now Israel has been routed from its embassies in erstwhile friendly countries Egypt, Turkey, and Jordan.
As Israel has shifted right, America has moved with it such that the U.S. is no longer seen as the mediator of Middle East peace. Which led ultimately to the supposedly "anti-Israel" Obama, boxed by domestic politics into giving a very pro-Israel speech at the U.N., washing away many of the gains of his Cairo speech of 2009.
America has long been Israel's protector, at no little cost. Israel prevailed easily in the Six Day War of 1967. But in the Yom Kippur War of '73, the Israelis were on the verge of defeat until America intervened, resupplying them.
The Soviets were on the verge of intervening on the Arabs' behalf with seven airborne divisions when the U.S. went to DEFCON 3. (DEFCON 5 is normal. We went to DEFCON 3 on 9/11. The only time it's ever gone as high as DEFCON was during the Cuban Missile Crisis.)
Because the U.S. was willing to risk war with the Soviet Union in order to save Israel, Israel narrowly prevailed. That set Egypt on the path which ended with the fall of Mubarak. It also set Arab oil producers, absolutely furious, against the U.S., creating the Arab oil embargo of 1973 and leading to permanent big increases in the cost of oil and gasoline.
That was nearly 40 years ago, decades in which we've repeatedly vowed to end our dependence on foreign oil even as we've become ever more dependent.
Today there are new costs, in the form of a new generation of jihadists angry about America's massive bootprint in Arab lands.
General Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan till his associates' rude remarks about Obama and other administration officials in Rolling Stone brought that tenure to a screeching halt, says that America was very ill-prepared for the Afghan War that emerged after the initial retaliatory take-down of the Taliban after 9/11.
And that the 2003 invasion of Iraq proved to be not only a massive distraction but also a huge recruitment spur for jihadists.
Did bin Laden foresee that we would over-react so massively and blindly to his attacks a decade ago?
* Degrading Americans' quality of life and right to privacy. Is there anyone who doesn't fly on private jets who actually enjoys flying anymore? It used to an adventure.
Then there is the heightened surveillance, which we've come to take for granted.
The fear factor for Americans has led to an increased conservatism and, worse, a more radical conservatism marked by a desperate sort of ultra-nationalism, driving further imperial overstretch.
Of course, it didn't have to be this way.
We might not have ignored warnings of likely attacks inside the U.S.. And we might have reacted more intelligently, and no less resolutely, if the attacks came despite our greater precautions.
The U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century -- known also as the Hart-Rudman Commission for its co-chairs, former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman -- appointed by President Bill Clinton and Defense Secretary Bill Cohen in 1999, warned of major terrorist attacks within the U.S. But despite its bipartisan membership, and efforts by Hart, Rudman, and other commissioners to brief top officials, the commission's report was ignored by the new administration.
Indeed, on the very morning of 9/11, then National Security Advisor Condi Rice was scheduled to deliver an address on the supposed major threats to national security: Inadequate missile defense and rogue states such as, yes, Iraq and North Korea.
As it happened, Hart knew Rice fairly well. In 1985, he and I met with Rice at her Stanford University office to get her to join the advisory board of Hart's think tank, the Center for A New Democracy, which she did.
She's a nice person, a very intelligent person. But by 2001, she reflected the predilections of the Bush/Cheney White House.
And so it went.
Did bin Laden foresee all this? It's impossible to say. For one thing, the planning of 9/11 was underway before it was clear that Bush would become the only president of the modern era to lose the popular vote.
But Bush's election was certainly not unlikely. Many had expected it, and seen Al Gore as the underdog. And bin Laden had ample opportunity to study the man and the people behind him.
My guess is that he had plenty of time to work most of it out in his mind. But whether he did or not, he surely appreciated what he had wrought by the time the SEALs descended upon him.
You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com.
William Bradley Huffington Post Archive
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/signs-jerry-brown-after-a_b_1022364.html
Say, how 'bout that Occupy Wall Street stuff around the world?
The Occupy Wall Street "movement" doesn't make much sense to me. In the US, they're barking up the wrong tree and they don't seem to make the proper distinctions between Democrats and Republicans. They will continue to make that mistake at their own peril. And, it won't do the rest of us any good, either.
What do you think about it?
I think also that the message is very diffuse and prone to manipulation.
In my view, the Obama doctrine (see below!) was always going to be a tough row to hoe, from the get-go. Recall Biden’s “Augean stables” address to a select group of Obama’s biggest donors in October 2008, days before the election.
However, even though I understood the depth and breadth of the monumental mess - domestically and internationally - that the new administration would be left to deal with, I had little appreciation of, and vastly underestimated, the lengths to which the Republicans in Washington would go to erect unprecedented obstacles to progress in a concerted and singular effort to limit Obama/Biden to one term in the White House, at any and all costs.
As for my take on all that the emerging Obama doctrine entails . . . first off, I have hardly “extolled” the virtues of it; I have merely suggested - to a crowd who I assumed might have opinions on the subject similar to my own, I should add - that the ultimate success of the “emerging Obama doctrine” may turn out to be one positive trend in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in terms of how US foreign policy is conducted over the course of Obama’s full term in office, with certain caveats as I clearly outlined in the relevant Mad Men piece.
... continued ...
What follows is the short version of what I understand to be the emerging Obama doctrine, in one overarching sentence ...
The Obama doctrine, as elegant in its fundamental simplicity as it is a welcome and dramatic reversal of course from the previous decade, redefines the concept of national power from one of global domination to global leadership (with the US leading, primarily, not by the example of its power but by the power of its example . . . I had to paraphrase Biden somewhere, you know) as it seeks to promote an international system - politically and economically - where all nations abide by the rule of law and recognize that their shared interests can only be protected through persistent international cooperation and a sense of shared responsibilities in an effort, consistent with global partnership, to solve the global challenges that face us all.
... continued ...
So, there it is.
At this point in time, the ‘Obama doctrine’ does not quite rise to the level of demanding a full paragraph. Sorry. But, let’s revisit it at some point after the November 2012 elections and debate whether or not it may yet rise to the level of being a positive trend in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and more than a decade of US response to them.
The emerging Obama doctrine is, after all, rather uncomplicated. Which, I suppose, is why it seems to me like I have to spell it out ONLY to somehow prove that I’m not a first class idiot.
Oh, and, don't worry ... I won't let the door hit me on the way out. :)
Why else do you think I have spent the time and effort here - in the face of outright animosity, I might add - to try to highlight a few possible positive trends to brighten up an otherwise bleak state of affairs that you so rightly and capably enumerate in this depressing piece?
>>>You know, this is not a piece that makes me happy.
The Arab awakening has clearly demonstrated that this trend has progressed to the point where people are beginning to peel away the layers of fear that they have lived with for so long - fear of their oppressive leaders and fear of giving voice to their desires for freedom and democracy.
As events this weekend in Egypt reveal, however, democracy promotion in the Arab world will not be without its setbacks and there is no guarantee that democracy will take root and flourish. But, it remains one positive trend that will critically impact upon how successful the struggle against terrorism can be.
I wonder if bin Laden had enough time to work out in his head how his actions mightily contributed to the notion of democracy and freedom taking root and growing within the Arab world in what may essentially translate into a repudiation of his overarching message that horrific acts of violence are the only effective means to achieve political ends. I hope that kept him up at night.
>>> which bodes well for America’s struggle to defeat, dismantle and destroy al-Qaeda
So, let me see if I'm following this. First off, you have either purposefully quoted me out of context to reduce the weight and validity of my argument or you didn't bother to take the time to read my whole post. Very disappointing, to say the least.
Secondly, you appear to be saying that the Arab awakening and all that it entails has no bearing, whatsoever, on the struggle against terrorism. Interesting ...
Perhaps, you are saying that since the "original Al Qaeda is destroyed", the struggle against terrorism is over and done with.
Would you like to elaborate?
"Another extremely positive trend in the wake of the 9/11 attacks which bodes well for America’s struggle to defeat, dismantle and destroy al-Qaeda AND ITS ILK is the emergence of a new political discourse in the Arab world that focuses on notions of democracy and freedom and pre-dates the Arab awakening."
>>>So what? Bradley already said that the original Al Qaeda is destroyed..."which bodes well for America's struggle to defeat, dismantle and destroy al-Qaeda"
American popularity is down dramatically in the Arab world since Obama's great Cairo speech of 2009.
Looking back, you can see that I started a series of articles on the Cairo effect at various points down the road, but abandoned it as it became obvious that the surge of popularity had reversed.
The still emerging Obama doctrine - a somewhat surprisingly difficult birth, indeed - could prove to be one of the long-term positive trends that I’ve been dreaming about in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in terms of the future direction of US foreign policy. Of course, there are a lot of variables that must be considered, not to mention historical underpinnings. And, much is dependent upon whether the US chooses to protect its interests through global domination or global leadership and whether, in any event, it proves capable of providing either.
I'm not sure how much of that has anything, whatsoever, to do with bin Laden, though. Sorry. :)
>>> The still emerging Obama doctrine - a somewhat surprising ly difficult birth, indeed
How would you describe the Obama doctrine and would you agree that it represents a welcome reversal in many respects from the previous administration and, indeed, a developing positive trend in the conduct of US foreign policy?
I don't think it's at all unlikely that bin Laden anticipated than any American president would make similar moves.
>And yet, Osama bin Laden may be the man who crashed the world. With a great deal of help from not unpredictable actions on the part of his enemies.
Do you think that an illusory boom was not encouraged by the administration in the wake of the 9/11 shock?
Do you think everything that happened since 9/11 is a result of the 9/11 shock?
I know you know that, Bill.
First off, this provocative essay is a fascinating foray into an extensive chain of causation arguably put in motion by bin Laden’s 9/11 attacks. It is a compelling exercise to assess the success and failure of those horrific events and the overall response to them and to make judgements about who won, or lost, and why.
But, I wonder how valuable it is to be framing the central question - in terms either of bin Laden losing or winning - in the past tense with such a sense of finality about it. In other words, has enough time passed to really allow for an accurate and enduring assessment of whether, and to what extent, bin Laden has won or lost on the grounds outlined in this piece?
An unmistakable implication inherent in the suggestion that bin Laden has mostly won includes the notion, among others, that the US is in steady decline and will remain so for the foreseeable future, and beyond, and that there is little the US can do over the next several years, and beyond, to alter that course. I’m not ready to concede that nor am I willing to attribute quite so much credit to bin Laden for the state of affairs - domestically and internationally - in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, ten years on.
I think the burden would be on you to argue why things are actually going to get better.
Of course, they won't stack up to all of your endless negativity. :)
And, you will recall that I'm not arguing that everything is or will be coming up roses, for God's sake! I have mentioned my own caveats as well.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29339.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29339.htm
Implementation of US policies, programs.
Destruction of poor nations.
Rising up of mischief acts of india.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29339.htm
In Daisy cutter bombed country where, no progress, no trade, no peace and no industry. What 16 or 18 indian counsulate offices are doing ???? think.
They are helping in these killings
These Thousands of killings are the same as in Iraq "WMD" based thousands of killings and not even a single WMD was found.
Remember.
What is more troubling and depressing is that the so-called War on Terror has escalated into a war against "radical" or political-Islam, and many lines have been blurred.
We must be open minded to the big picture of world events and
the forces and history that led to it. Naturally this includes that event in Sept.
" That " day was very complex, we don't have all the answers, even as shocking
and important as it was.
Who says this ?
Only the two leader's of that Commission, Kean and Hamilton, who say it
was rushed, didn't have enough money to do it right [ in fact, much less
than for Clinton's private affair ! ], and some lied to them !
Who else.....about 40% of the US....even well over 50% depending on
the wording.....who simply say it was a complex puzzle and the
STORY does not fit, it does not add up !
So let's be "more accurate" about exactly what happened and if
there are more people responsible in various ways. Some of
them were "merely" lax and lazy, but some clearly were
much worse.
Who else wants more information.....many of the suviver families,
and people in the fire or police departments, military, etc., etc....
or do they count ? If there's nothing to hide, why not ?