While numerous
passages from The 9/11 Report: A Graphic
Adaptation defined the attacks in starkly honest terms, one particular excerpt
invited me to question the safety of life in America. Near the end of the
adaptation, one particular square reads: “In the past, to be dangerous, an
enemy had to muster large armies. Now, an organization like Al Qaeda,
headquartered in a country with little electricity or telephones, can scheme to
wield weapons of unprecedented destructive power” (Jacobson, Colόn 114). The picture associated with the quote shows
two terrorists conspiring with each other inside a cave, an image that
reiterates the ability that “weaker” countries now possess. This excerpt ties
back to a discussion briefed in class: can we discount the military or
terroristic power of certain countries just because they lack the technological
development of first-world countries? At the risk of making a broad
generalization, I do believe that an enemy—or more specifically, a terrorist—is
only as strong as their target is weak. As I read The 9/11 Report, I could not believe how many opportunities the
government missed in the prevention of the attacks. Once again, another quote
took my breath away; before the attacks, “Richard Clarke, however, remained
consistent. In a memo to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, he wrote, ‘Decision
makers should imagine themselves on a future day when the CSG has not succeeded
in stopping Al Qaeda attacks and hundreds of Americans lay dead in several
countries, including the U.S.’” (Jacobson, Colόn 66). However, the “decisions makers” Clarke speaks
of did not take action, and his premonition came true. Such inaction reminds me
of the quote from Elshtain as she used to reassure her students that, “Americans
don’t have living memories of what it means to flee a city in flames. Americans
have not been horrified by refugees fleeing burning cities” (Elshtain 8). I want to leave my final conclusion open for
criticism and speculation: I believe that our enemy truly was as strong as
their target was weak. With that being said, I am wondering if my professors
and classmates alike will agree that, because naiveté on the part of Clarke’s “decision
makers” and common citizens as Elshtain, Americans were completely blindsided
by the attacks and could have taken preventative action if they considered the
possibility of a terrorist attack.
Very nice post, Bethany. If you want to read something really depressing, pick up Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies." In that volume he sets out in detail the threats the U.S faces and the institutional obstacles to confronting these threats. I think I disagree with you when you write "an enemy . . . is only as strong as their target is weak." The problem I have with that notion is that it seems to drive us toward an unattainable goal of invulnerability.
ReplyDeleteBethany, thanks for your post. Two thoughts, to add to Dr. Lauritzen's, on your thoughtful consideration. First, though serious errors occurred in terrorist assessment prior to 9/11, we should try to be careful about presuming everything was obvious; for, if the attacks were clear, then our only presumption is that people in government must have known. Retrospectively, everything seems clear and inevitable, even the fact that the Miami Heat would lose against the Dallas Mavericks--they lacked team defense, etc.
ReplyDeleteSecond. Perhaps another way to frame your proposition is: "a [terrorist] enemy is only as strong as their target succumbs to fear." Security is never absolute. The question very well may be: how to deal with the radical uncertainty and possible vulnerability that most people on the globe face everyday?
I do admit that my statement was a broad one to make. So many factors contributed to the attacks that Americans cannot blame themselves for not predicting the event. I suppose that the reason why the government's naivete bothered me so much is because I believe the government takes on a role to protect its citizens. As a third grade student at the time of 9/11, I felt completely unsafe in my country. While my fears may have been irrational at the time (as I imagined a plane crashing into my bedroom window), over ten years later, my fears have changed, but they still remain. I suppose my biggest fear is that the American government did, in its naivete, leave us somewhat open to an attack. I don't think that they government can or should play a guessing game. If they suspect a threat, they need to act. The problem with 9/11 is that they didn't act soon enough.
ReplyDeleteBethany, thanks for sharing that personal memory; I can see how, experienced as a child, the attacks felt like a failure of our leaders (it was), and gave a great unease to you. The question becomes: how do we balance the needs of security against individual freedoms, so hallowed in our constitution?
ReplyDeleteI would be interested to know whether other students experience the fear Bethany describes. I know that, as a parent, I experienced greater fear of my children flying after 9/11. I'm not sure to do with that fear.
ReplyDeleteAs a student, I did experience the same fear Bethany describes. At the time, I knew what was going on, but I didn't know why and that kind of scared me. I was in the third grade and I remember everything clearly, as if it were yesterday. After the 9/11 attack, I panicked whenever a plane flew over my house, I cried for days when my dad had to get on a plane to Puerto Rico, because I thought the same thing would happen again. As of now, I feel a little more secure, but the feeling of fear will never go away.
ReplyDeleteI agree mostly with your post but don't agree with the last part, that we could have taken preventative measures to stop the attacks. Sure we could have had better airport security, but it all comes down to the fact that we never could have thought that someone would even think to use a plane as a weapon. There have been plane hijackings before, but nothing like this. In the past, someone would hijack a plane, take the passengers hostage, force the plane to land, and demand something. Its easy to say what we could have done to prevent it in hindsight, but prior to 9/11 it was unheard of. If you believe we could have done something to prevent it, I ask you this. How do we prepare for the next attack? Because we know that Al Qaeda's feelings of hatred against Americans arent going to go away any time soon. Besides having better emergency response plans, how can we prepare for an attack that we can not even begin to imagine?
ReplyDeleteFirst, I want to share my personal fears stemming from the 9/11 attacks. I was in the sixth grade when the attacks occurred, but it never really made me fearful of flying for the simple fact that my family and I didn’t really travel so flying wasn’t an issue. It wasn’t until I was 16 that I was invited to go to California with my aunt and uncle and that fear ultimately surfaced. I had never been on a plane before so the experience was nerve-racking to begin with, but the memories of 9/11 intensified my fears a great deal. I ultimately got on the plane and obviously everything was fine, but the thought still remains with me. I’ll be getting married next year and the thought of flying somewhere for my honeymoon still makes me very nervous, but I truly believe that it’s a fear that will remain for many Americans (at least for a while) because the shock of the attack is still so fresh.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I wanted to comment on Bethany’s discussion: I agree with the comments that it’s unrealistic to believe that the attacks truly could have been prevented. On the other hand, I do believe that Richard Clarke’s warnings should have been taken much more seriously. In my opinion, the decision to ignore his insistency speaks volumes, possibly even suggesting that there is some truth to the notion that America—at least at the time—saw itself as invincible. The attacks that occurred were a serious tragedy, but they were the result of a serious hatred toward America and its values; therefore, I believe that an attack of some sort (whether using a plane or another weapon) was inevitable. However, I agree that U.S. officials should have taken the threats more seriously to ensure they were doing all that was possible to protect American citizens.
Bethany, I know I can admit to initial feelings of shock and amazement when I was reading about Richard Clarke's warnings too. It is unfortunate that Clarke's team was disbanded and he was demoted once President Bush entered into office. We will never know what the outcome of 9/11 would have been if his team was able to continue their work.
ReplyDeleteAfter some reflection I can't say that I condone the fact that the warnings were ignored, but I can understand how they may have been pushed to the side or put off.
To put yourself in these leaders shoes' is an interesting experience. Condoleeza Rice alone was briefed daily on different security issues, some I'm sure were much more time sensitive and emenent than Clarke's foreboding warnings. In my experience in any leadership position it is very easy to let the day to day grind consume you and not spend as much time looking to the future or big picture. Condoleeza Rice had a team of professionals to help her, but I can understand that if other major security issues came up we would miss the warning. This highlights in a way some of the conclusions of the 9/11 report. America prior to 9/11 was working very little in the proactive side. As was stated earlier in the post America couldn't imagine an attack as awful as 9/11. I'm sure most of the work was a somewhat reactive position to tips that were time sensitive with more information than Clarke ever gave.
Now that more communication is facilitated between different agencies a bunch of vague tips may be the puzzle to helping our government stop another attack.
A lot of interesting points have been made on this thread--the failure of IMAGINATION, one of the areas highlighted by the Commission Report, was a large one. One of the things that I've been mulling over, since I'm in the IMAGINATION business (that's what being a writer and artist is), is how the term imagination is employed here to mean imagining the devious ways we could be attacked, and not imagining what sorts of condition lead people to such deviousness.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, I want to clarify that I don't believe that the attacks could have been entirely prevented. If al Qaeda wanted to strike, al Qaeda was going to strike. However, what I do believe is that, if Richard Clarke's warnings may have been taken more seriously, perhaps the events would not have been so intense or maybe thousands of lives could have been saved. However, a different outcome seems entirely impossible to imagine--it could have happened so many different ways. As far as preventing future attacks, I think the Dr. Metres pulls an interesting point out of the Commission Report. Imagination plays a key role in defeating the enemy. In order to be stronger than the enemy, an opponent must be one step ahead of the enemy, knowing their plots and working to prevent them. Since this is happening at such a high governmental level, I'm not entirely sure how the government could even begin to guess when or how or why the next enemy will strike. However, that mindset of staying one step ahead of the enemy--and not ignoring sure signs of something suspicious, similar to the way Clarke was cast aside--could be the key to avoiding the next attack.
ReplyDeleteAs Elshtain puts it, "A terrorist is one who sows terror. Terror subjects its victims or would-be vitims to paralyzing fear. In the words of the political theorist Michael Walzer, terrorism's "purpose is to destroy the morale of a nation or a class, to underecut its solidarity; its method is the random murder of innocent people. Randomness is the crucial feature of terrorist activity." (Elshtain, 18)
ReplyDeleteIt is not reasonable to expect 300 million people to be protected at all times from randomness. Yes there were failures within our government and its organizations leading up to the attacks on September 11th, but let's not pretend like the attacks weren't highly planned out and well orchestrated. Clearly it was a tragic day, but even in hindsight I really don't know that it could have been avoided entirely. The terrorists did their homework. They tested what they could and couldn't get through security. Even if we were to have changed our airport security strength/standards in light of the gathered intelligence, isn't it possible that the terrorists could have still adjusted to those new standards? Does the absence of a recent attack prove that what we have in place today is sufficient to stop another attack? Possibly, but who can say for certain?
I don't mean to sound pessimistic, or undermine the magnitude of the losses suffered that day. I just have a difficult time actually placing blame for the events that took place.
It was said in the quote I mentioned that the purpose of terrorist attacks is to "undermine our solidarity and destroy our morale." (Elshtain, 18) I believe they failed in these respects. I was a little older than some who posted above and mentioned being in third grade at that time. I was in sixth grade that year, and what I saw was a country that came together, a country whose solidarity was strengthened when we needed each other most. To me, it was a level of patriotism not previously seen. We win by staying unified and living our lives without fear.