One Man's Opinion (Re: 9/11)

It has been five years since the events of September 11th, 2001, and I wonder if we have learned enough to make a change for the better?

When I was 9 years old, I remember the hostages taken in Iran, and follwed very closely that situation until their release after Ronald Regan's election. No one ever explained how the Iran-Iraq war was a war by proxy between the Soviets and the US using an ethnic divide against these two nations.

I am no mid-east expert, but the dynamics of the Shiite and Sunni hatreds has only in this last five years become apparent to me. I knew that Iraq was another British engineered state (think India, Pakistan, Israel), and came with the same colonial hangover four-fifths of the world is still recovering from. I knew about the Kurds; I knew about the Taliban; and I knew a fair deal about the geopolitics of the post cold war era. But on September 10th, 2001 I still hadn't heard a great deal on the relevance of the Shiite-Sunni divide.

When I heard the Golden Lion had been assasinated in an ambush in Afghanistan, there was the same little tingle on the back of my neck as when I heard Musharraf became the unopposed dictator of Pakistan (back when I got my news from BBC world on my general band radio in Japan). I remember thinking the same thing on both occaisions, "This isn't good."

My depth of knowledge was that the Golden Lion held the northern coalition of Afghanistan together (dance with the devil you know, etc.), and was "our man."

It was three days after his death (his name escapes me) that civilian planes were used as war weapons against civilian and military targets-- a hideous act in the history of warfare.

To this day, our enemies wont wear uniforms to identify themselves on and off the field of combat; don't seem to make realistic and satisfiable demands; and seem to know more about us than we do them.

There is good reason our enemies wont wear uniforms at this point... the war would have been over in a matter of days. We have enough fire power to still fight many more wars (our personnel strength and morale is a different quotient).

Lets say for the sake of example, we in the West, or USA, decided, worst case scenario, to outright SURRENDER: who would we surrender to; what are the terms we are submitting to; what are they asking for; and where do we go to surrender? Answer those questions and you would have a starting point for negotiations. But these groups, are almost figments of our imaginations at this point. So who would we even negotiate with-- IF WE NEGOTIATED WITH TERRORISTS?

Most of their puff and bluster seems to point to 'total destruction" of the USA, the West, Europe, and/or Israel. How is that a tenable position? More to the point is that REALLY what the anger and violence is about, OUR total destruction?

Greatest modern surrenders are clearly Germany and Japan. Italy was osstensibly leaderless, and in ruins by the time they were overtaken by force (a little historical panash for our departed Patton who was enacting the sacking of Rome, perhaps as Hannibal). Germany may have had some fight left in them, and Japan was unwilling to call USA's bluff as to the number and production capacity of A-Bombs-- they had quite a lot of potential fight left in them (years by many a Vet's account).

These unconditional surrenders spelled out clear guidelines for the fostering of new nations built more in tune with the civilizations that won. Total destruction wasn't actually the goal, or even in the dialogue.

"Nazis, stop trying to become the new Roman empire and consume all of Europe killing people with mechanical abandon PLEASE," was the message in the E-theatre.

"Japanese, stop trying to become the new Spanish empire and consume all of Asia killing people with a creative mix of ruthlessless and ingenuty PLEASE," was the message in the P-theatre.

Now, I would say, we in the West are, more or less, saying; "People who claim to have a cause against us whom we label terrorist, because no state has the balls enough to claim your cause, stop being annoying assholes by killing others as you see fit. Just because you don't value your own lives, that doesn't give you the right to destroy other people to 'send a message.'" Thats a general summation of our Position.

But what are they trying to say? What is their position? Do they even have one, as such, general and unfied, so to say?

Total destruction is a rediculous idea. Thinking back to WWII, do you understand that for us to level the state of Germany would have been another five to ten years of full time demolition work for all the allied forces? Not to mention that most of the Allies were practically on the verge of Bankruptcy at that point. Further, the concepts of honor, civility, and international peace were very real. No one would stand for such a mission.

If these so-called Terrorists are as patchwork as I am reckoning, they will be spending the rest of their lives trying to accomplish that insurmountable goal of Total Destruction for the West. And yet this is no way to live, or fight. Personally I don't enjoy the prospect of another twenty, thirty, fifty years of this bullshit.

A more nuanced view might take it that they would like the post-Modern world to leave them out of it, so the minor and major dictatorships of the "middle east" can continue unabated and uniterrupted from their normal modus operandi-- if you believe these to be proxy armies and cells fighting on behalf of the states.

Conversely, these could be people tired of being ruled by authoritarians, who are perceiving the West as ratifying dictatorships (as we effectively do), and just like a teenager who might act out in a destructive manner, is "crying for help." Just because you are enraged that Johnny wrecked the sports car, doesn't mean he doesn't need help with his problems, Mom and Dad. It doesn't make Johnny right, nor change the facts, by the way-- he still wrecked the car while driving drunk and killed his best friend in the accident.

Finally, I believe what we have here, again, is a patchwork of groups with a variety of agendas: those ones don't like Israel; these ones are tired of the imposed minority rule; that one genuinely hates what America stands for (in his mind); those ones are looking to expand their borders; and these ones have been fighting against occupying powers for so long its a wonder what they would be able to do if they didn't have anyone to fight (like the Taliban, and actually, and when they ruled Afghanistan, they decided to start killing their own people according to 'Muslim Law'.)

Not Religion.

For those who believe this is a religious war, you are sorely mistaken. Modern Muslims are like most Modern Christians and Jews (I know I have met them at college) in that they don't hold an ancient book as the only way for a society to instruct, run, and organize its people. Thought evolves just like people grow and learn. One book does not a library maketh.

There are fundimental geo-political reasons this war, if you can have a war against a concept rather than a state (War on Terror), is happening.

I am just one man with one opinion, and I certainly don't claim to have the grasp on all the details to pull the trigger to shoot the magic bullet which makes this all go away neatly. But this leads me to my third point.

Think about how much our enemies knew about our culture to not just infiltrate our systems, but to have decided to attack on a day which had maximum impact. I think had they the chance (in other words if there were such a day) they would have chosen June 66th, 200?. Then the media and the President would get to say 666 over and over again as the emblem for "evil."

Much like a rebellious child this would serve the purpose very neatly.

Rather, they selected a day which corresponded to our telephone emergency system, and was the anniversary of the Camp David Peace Accord, which was also the same impetus for the hostages in Iran in 1979. (By the way some other nations emergency phone systems are 112, 119, 000, and 999.)

What day of the year would invoke the same response to Islamo-fascists? I have no idea, and I bet you dont either.

Although this may prevoke a joke or two, where is the financial center for Islamo-fascists? (The jokes are: they dont have one, or New York City.)

In sum, they know more about us than we know of them, we don't even really know who they are, where they are, or why they are fighting, and they wont wear uniforms so our shoe shine boys can leave hand grenades at cab stands to kill them, like happened to our boys in Vietnam.

In conclusions, I pray to the universe that people come to their senses. Mao claimed that power comes from the barrel of a gun, but as it is that won't play in Poughkeepsie for our enemies. Terrorists will have a much better chance of winning the war of ideas by explaining what the hell is happening, because as it is our government isn't doing a very good job of it.

My recommendations: Congress and the executive need to "*leave no recommendation (from the 9/11 Commission) behind," Stop violating the Geneva Convention, and work with the Generals on the ground to develop a realistic plan (this may require Rumsfield's impeachment, as most ministers in UK or EU would have long ago resigned in disgrace and shame).

*The Government is willing to bust balls on our kids to pass tests, teachers to meet standards, but they are unwiling to get 75% or better on the recommendations from the Bi-Partisan commision?

Bottom line: My heart and prayers to those who have lost loved ones on that day, and the many days since. I ask the congress and the executive "where is your shame?" And I request our enemies list their demands, wear uniforms, and tell us where their Capitol is so we can send an "emissary."