History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
As a historian, I can't help but think that, generations from now, our descendants will look back on 9/11 and be amazed at our odd reactions to it, even three years later.
*Public schools across the United States were put on alert this week because of reports that the floor plan of a public school in Jones County, Georgia, was downloaded to a computer in Iraq. Do you have any idea where Jones County, Georgia, is? Neither did I and I live here. So I looked it up. It's northeast of Macon. A good bit of the county is covered by the Oconee National Forest. The county seat is at Gray, Georgia: population, 2,189. Do you begin to get the picture? This is the biggest event in Jones County history since Sherman's boys marched roughly through Georgia a 140 years ago. A loon could think that Muslim terrorists were planning to repeat what Yankee terrorists did then. Officials in Jones County have been told to keep an eye out for"prolonged 'static surveillance' by people disguised as panhandlers, shoe shiners, or newspaper or flower vendors." What a hoot! I'll have to remember not to peddle my papers anywhere near Jones County.
*The events of 9/11 were apparently planned by a network of terrorists centered in Afghanistan, so the president of the United States concentrates available military personnel and resources on an invasion of Iraq, where they are mired in guerilla warfare.
These are problems, large and small, in what"management science" calls"resource allocation."
"A special ops mission." Perhaps. You are correct that I was thinking of a larger ooperation. I've never been sure that a special ops mission had a likely chance to take bin Laden out, but perhaps so.
However, such a mission would have had a double or nothing aspect to it. If bin Laden's head had come home on a platter, Clinton would have had support. No head and high casualities and not only is Clinton toast politically, but neither he nor his succesor would have had any freedom of action at all to act before 9/11.
I am not claiming that Clinton was great on this. However I don't think he was any worse than the pre-9/11 Bush, and I have not been one of those who has harped upon Bush's pre-9/11 mistakes. There is an element of 20/20 hindsight to it, and I think he's made enough mistakes since to justify replacing him (upon which point we differ).
Richard Henry Morgan -
10/10/2004
Oscar, I'm just not as sure as you are that, after the Africa embassy bombings, after Mogadishu, and after the Cole, Clinton could not have made a case that would have met with enough support (I'm not talking here of a full invasion of Afganistan, but a targeted special ops effort). I seem to remember him catching more hell for pulling ships up short in Haiti than for going in, and I don't remember any great hue and cry of opposition when he rather ineffectually lobbed a few missiles into Afghanistan in an effort to rub him out. The pharmaceutical plant bombing in the Sudan did get criticized as politically motivated, but that seemed more a function of the timing and an understandable desire on the part of the Administration not to go into the basis of it -- intercepted communications between the plant and the head of Saddam's chemical weapons program.
Derek Charles Catsam -
10/9/2004
It is more than a little disingenuous to claim that Clinton could simply have taken Osama out given that nearly every single military engagement in which he did involve us met with heaqvy resistance from the now superpatriotic right. No way Clinton could have done too much more than he did with regard to Osama or terror. I wioll give the President this: He is right when he says, albeit with droning constancy, that 9-11 changed things.
Re: The Georgia terror alert -- American communities from what I can tell became amazingly solipsistic after 9-11. Almost every section of the country came up with reasons why they might come in for an attack. Since 9-11 I have lived in DC/Northern Virginia, where those fears were obviously and palpably legitimate. I have also lived in Mankato, Charlottesville, and Odessa where they may not be. I was coaching with the MSU track team and we had our conference championship meet in Vermillion, South Dakota, and I swear that the student newspaper had an article on why Vermillion might be a target. I am not certain what creates this phenomenon, except maybe people like to be scared poopless for no real reason.
dc
Oscar Chamberlain -
10/9/2004
Richard, You know perfectly well that Clinton would have caught hell for making bin Laden the target of a signifcant military campaign. And the Republicans would have been in the lead (though most assuredly not alone).
Bush has had a public willing to follow his lead and therefore he has had full freedom in developing his anti-terorism policy post 9/11. What we are seeing in Iraq, what we are seeing in terms of resource allocation, are Bush administration decisions made with almost no constraints. Good or bad, right or wrong, Bush has the full responsibility that goes with full freedom to act.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/9/2004
I think the rest of us should cheer Richard's honesty here: the whole business of bringing democracy to Afghanistan is just so much sham. The real point is to protect American interests and punish America's enemies. Why can't you get the Bushies to say that Richard?
Richard Henry Morgan -
10/9/2004
I'm less concerned about warlords reemerging. Warlords predated the arrival of al Qaeda. They will probably be around for another century or two. Rather, the important thing is to keep Afghanistan from reemerging as a terror state (Osama basically bought himself a state). That occurred when Osama with his money and his foreign troops was able to take over the country -- and that, mainly by the age-old method of buying off warlords. Certainly warlords could, if we allow them, become a base for terror. But I think we handle them on a case by case basis, as they present a threat to us, as opposed to a threat to a unitary state that has never previously existed.
I just don't see the warlords as a threat themselves, or as becoming a basis for a threat, and frankly I doubt our ability, or willingness, to become the prime mover in trying to establish a unitary state. There are real good reasons Afghanistan has always been a mess, and I doubt we can make much headway in bringing it to modernity.
Jonathan Dresner -
10/9/2004
I love to start the day with an easy questions: TROOPS!
Security, policing, that sort of thing. Keeping warlords from reemerging; providing basic security services while national forces are trained, armed and legitimized. If Afghanistan fails as a state, it will largely be because we did not try in a meaningful fashion to keep it alive as a unitary state.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/9/2004
It's unclear to me that Clinton might certainly have taken out bin Laden. Bush had the wisdom not to take out Zarqawi when he had a chance. Kerry's vote to authorize didn't mean that Bush had to commit.
Richard Henry Morgan -
10/9/2004
Yeah, and Clinton had the "wisdom" not to take out Osama bin Laden when he could (at least no troops died right?). And Kerry had the "wisdom" to authorize Bush sending troops. And Edwards didn't have the authority to send troops anyway, so I'm not sure how that lack of authority counts as wisdom.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/9/2004
Clinton, Kerry, and Edwards had the wisdom not to send American troops into the swamp.
Richard Henry Morgan -
10/9/2004
They shouldn't believe Bush. They should believe Clinton, Kerry, and Edwards, who said the same thing.
Adam Kotsko -
10/9/2004
Man, how many times does the president have to say that for people to understand? Saddam was a threat! He was considering pursuing WMD-related program activities! He was a threat! Some people will just never listen to reason.
Oh, BTW, he was a threat!
Richard Henry Morgan -
10/9/2004
Could be. You might have a point. I don't think we know how they've deployed their resources (the translators). For all I know (and, I suspect, for all just about anyone knows other than a few people, and they aren't posting here) al Qaeda material gets top priority and Iraq is feeling the shortage. But at least you've identified an area of shortage somewhere.
Brian Ulrich -
10/9/2004
We are always inundated by news of the shortage in Arabic translators. Might some now be working on Iraq stuff who could be working on al-Qaeda stuff?
Richard Henry Morgan -
10/9/2004
Iraq as a resource drain on Afghanistan is an interesting argument. It would be greatly strengthened if you could specify what resources in Afghanistan are lacking such that it remains a center of planning for terrorists.
Granted, there may be terrorists, few in number and isolated by lack of communication other than by slow courier, and lacking infrastructure, parked in the desolate border area of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Then again they might not be there. In any case, there is a reason the king's writ in Pakistan and Afghanistan did not reach there, and does not reach there -- it too is a question of resource management. Are you aware what numbers of troops would need to be deployed and supported in place in a desolate region, with no guarantee of even finding terrorists in any number, or being able to eliminate them if we could? I ask you, where is the security situation better today, Afghanistan or Iraq?
