(11-29-2010, 09:40 PM)--Pete Wrote: And, while the answer (is there really only one?) might indeed be at an extreme, I'm hard pressed to think of a situation in history where an extreme answer proved itself right in the long run.This is hard for many, but you'd have to try to step into GWB's shoes on September 12th while he cruised around in AF1 in the hot seat.
{Wearing my hindsight glasses}
First, consider the boiling blood of 80 to 90% of the US, and as Marjorie pointed out, at that time 45% would be willing to torture terrorists themselves to get information. Rescue efforts are getting under way to recover bodies and any remaining survivors. The dust hasn't settled, literally. Airlines are shut down, the stock market is closed, etc. etc. This was an economic Pearl Harbor, as the original one nearly crippled us militarily, this one almost crippled us financially. It was the blow that signaled the impending recession in 2001, and Greenspan's response, amongst other players and choices they made eventually brought about this latest financial crisis in 2008. But, the seeds of it were sown in 2001 by how Greenspan intervened, and failed to intervene.
The evidence and intelligence was slowly trickling in that this was an Al Queda operation, masterminded by OBL, who happens to be a guest of the Taliban in Afghanistan. There were already numerous failed, weak and rogue states in the region, Iran, Iraq, Yeman, Somalia, Syria, and Sudan. Then, Pakistan, which doesn't fit any of the above, although their military dictators grip on power was tenuous.
The war in Iraq was obviously trumped up, and I was also swept up in the US propaganda (with Colin Powell) justifying the war there. Now, looking back, I can only guess that it was a part of a larger Middle East stabilization strategy where the US and Europe can better isolate and deal with Iran, and ignore or placate the others (Yeman, Sudan, Somalia, Syria) for now. The radical Shiites were mostly contained by the radical Wahhabi surrounding them. But altogether it is these nations(plus Palestine) that act like a machine pumping out wave after wave of radicalized fundamentalist terrorists.
Bush's choices were limited and he opted for the ones that were most politically palatable to his base. This eventually led to the Republican defeat in 2008, as the Democrats had an activated base which mobilized many new voters and a charismatic young candidate who's vague promises of "Change" swept over the middle of the road "independent" voters. And...
The administrations mistakes during their two terms were legion; the feeling of rushing to war without much diplomacy, the failure to fully marshal alliances, the trumping up of evidence against Saddam's regime to justify war, Abu Garib, Gitmo, Renditions, Patriot Act, TSA, DHS, etc. etc. And, then he also ticked off his base with big government domestic spending, and during his term never addressed the looming ditch we were heading right into (by that time it was Paulsen's job to steer).
Were any of Marjorie Cohn's suggested options any better, or might they have changed the course of any of this? Probably, yes. But, politically, and practically, they were mostly unfeasible solutions that would have kicked the problem down the road a few more years. If this Middle East strategy is/was in place, then the Bush (and Clinton, and Obama) administration could/should have spent more time educating people before and after the fact. This reveals parts of a larger puzzle, bringing along "the people" in the master plans, allowing us to either support or reject them.
Maybe it needed to be done, but it certainly could have been done better. That is Bush's legacy. He bit off more than he could chew, and it's the people who must pay the price. He was pretty mediocre at best, and that's what we get when we elect people without any experience.
Of course, you know my answer. Bite off less, and there is less to chew. The panoply of nations is currently a huge dysfunctional family. The US is the physically abusive rich relative who first has to beat the snot out of you, and then cleans you up and takes you out for dinner and ice cream (reminding me of the movie; "The cook, the thief, his wife, her lover").