9/11 has been the biggest story in the news since, well, 9/11/01. It's been over six years now, and with a regime change coming up, I'd like to examine how relevant it still is.

Lately in the primary campaigns, we haven't heard quite so much about 9/11, but it was a major theme of Giuliani's, and I believe it will come up a lot more between now and November.

1. To what extent, if any, are today's problems (economic problems included) a result of the 9/11 attacks?

I don't think we're experiencing very many problems as a result of our response to 911 yet. They'll come during the next presidential term of office. Our heavy debt will come back to us. This recession is the beginning, as well as the declining dollar. I suspect things will get worse (sorry, wish I were more upbeat!).

On the other hand, the idea for was sparked (if I remember correctly) by 911. Blogs were born. The full force of ideas began when we were confronted by violence on our side of the pond. And the population at large is vastly more educated than before. The change is rather profound.

Forgetting about Iraq for a moment [/i]- was the Afghanistan campaign a good move for America?

I wouldn't classify it as a "good move". It was a necessary move. The best defense is a credible deterrence. Provide a haven for people who target and kill us, you forfeit your control over the levers of power and we target you.

Unfortunately, we expended too many assets in "other places" to effectively go about it. There is no excuse for the Taliban making a new appearance in Afghanistan. The Afghanis are understandably questioning why, if we could eliminate the Taliban virtually overnight, they have come back. The widely accepted answer is that we want the Taliban to inhabit Afghanistan so that we can remain in their country. If I were they, I would conclude the same thing. The way we have let that country go since our occupation is inexcusable.

Clearly much of the uncertainty in the oil market is due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which effect the price of oil. The drop in the dollar, which strongly affects the price of oil, is related to deficit spending – also war related and a result of 9/11. The increase in oil prices has led to the disastrous “ethanol” policy that has raised food prices here and abroad and will surely be responsible for the deaths of 10s of thousands world wide.



Yes. To have not moved on Afghanistan would have left AQ in tact in that country and they would have surely hit us again since 9/11. We should have used more troops there - NATO "support" has been a dismal failure.

Forgetting about Iraq for a moment - was the Afghanistan campaign a good move for America?

I think for the most part it was. Afghanistan was a semi-failed state, and in some cases the international community should take the lead in securing regions that breed terrorism due to the conditions of a failed state. Unfortunately, the US again took the lead and is bearing the brunt of the cost, in lives and dollars.

The model for our involvement was revolutionary, and could be a rough template for future operations. The 5th Special Forces Group was essentially given carte blanche in equipment and other resources, and a wide latitude to accomplish the original mission; that mission was to provide whatever aid possible to certain factions of the Northern Alliance, and to assist in toppling the Taliban quasi-government in the urban centers. They integrated early and well with the warlords and their fighters, and adapted their unconventional warfare doctrine to the specific needs of the alliance.

But alas, like all effective military operations, once success was achieved bureaucracy stepped in to rule like the new warlords. Today, aside from being on the back burner compared to Iraq [which didn't spawn the terrorists who actually attacked us] Afghanistan is replete with cumbersome staffs and red tape. What took a 5 minute Satcom call to Tampa or Langley for approval, now takes days of various officers of the hierarchy to place their chop on the appropriate form. Afghanistan now is truly a case of garrison breaking out in a combat environment.

I might support this type of action based on the 5th Group model in somewhere such as Somalia, where the circumstances are similar, and terrorists actively threaten the US. But what good is that endeavor, if the administration is then going siphon off manpower and resources for another, and less critical adventure?

It is saddening that after the initial success, much of Afghanistan is reverting to fundamental Islamic practices, the opium poppies are being cultivated again.......and the Taliban is surging in many areas.

Let's take this hypothetical to the nth degree and imagine that we had taken no offensive action against any country in retaliation. I mean, let's imagine that we just took 9/11 like a bunch of Frenchmen. Beef up security at airports, work to dismantle Al Qaida's funding, increase antiterror efforts at home, and generally take all reasonable non-military steps to prevent further attacks. Rebuild and move on. Six years later, where might we be?

Here's one possibility - my best case scenario: increased security does the job, and we have suffered no further attacks. No loss of military life. No giant expenditures on Middle East military operations. The economy, unburdened by war, is doing OK. Oil prices are reasonable. With the economy rolling along, we are either better able to handle the looming subprime mortgage crisis, or possibly avoid it altogether. Saddam is still running Iraq, sanctions are still in place. Afghanistan is still under Taliban control. Pakistan is probably still led by Musharraf, I don't know - but I would assume that until there is some reason to move, Bin Laden stays in Afghanistan.

If, six years ago, you knew that after 9/11, no other major attacks on U.S. soil would be effective, would you still go into Afghanistan? Would you choose the problems that come with a military campaign (and probably an occupation) over a normal economy and a bruised ego?

Interesting hypo, but the problem with the premise is there are at least two options that would lead to no further attacks: Your hypo, presumably, and the path we actually followed, in reality. Depending upon how you rank in importance the fact we've suffered no further Islamic extremist attacks here when the UK and Spain have, the war in Afh and the war in Iraq may have been good ideas if they moved the battleground from NYC to Baghdad and mountains bordering Paksitan.

Still, you hypo sounds good if for no other reason than it is a lot cheaper.

Given that our initial bombing campaign inflicted around as many, if not more civilian casualties than we lost on 9/11; it would certainly reinforce the perception by many around the world that our civilians have more worth than your civilians.

Can we trust non-verified government reports that we have inflicted enough damage to AQ to warrant the military action?

Even if you did – which is impossible – would you not want to persue the people who murdered 3,000 civilians given that you knew where most of them were?

And we can make a case that the Afghanistan Campaign is one major reason we have not been attacked again.

And to do this all we need to do is look at the 90s when we were attacked here and abroad (numerous times) – and did squat to take out the source. IMO if we had gone after the source then we might have interrupted the entire 9/11 operation and saves ourselves thousands of lives and about a trillion $$$

Yes for Justice - however if only for Revenge its puts you at the same level as the attackers and serves only the attackers cause

Which "we" are you using there . the coalition that went with you into Afganistan was attacked a number of times after 911, Bali, London, Glasgow ...
Oh then there was anthrax, and the shoe bomber on the flight to the U.S. .... Suddenly I think your case has some holes

And then you could really stirred the pot and made it even worse

Yes justice and to reduce the bases and personell that planned the attack.



I mean the US mainland. We have not had a successful attack here since 9/11 – we have frustrated some in the process but imo if we had done nothing there would have been more attempts – some of which would have succeeded.




You lost me. The man declared war on us in 1998. He tried to drop the WTC in 1993. WE were hit all over the world throughout the 90s and Bill did imo nearly nothing – and blew at least one chance to kill bin Laden.

What could have been worse than 9/11? I guess we could have waited until BL had a WMD and lost more civilians.

That is what I was driving at - the cost/benefit analysis. The reason I wanted to exclude Iraq from the question is because it is obviously an expensive mistake that makes the cost of retaliation look horrible.

When we talk about what might have happened under different presidents, it is nearly a given that anybody would have at least taken some action against Afghanistan. Even Al Gore probably would have gone in. But what would have happened in Afghanistan had we not started to concentrate on Iraq and Saddam? I'm guessing that it would be a full-scale occupation, similar to Iraq, while we continuted to look for Bin Laden, and probably have many of the same problems we are having now. And possibly, we'd be spending the same $trillions$.

So the cost of pursuing security through military action and occupation/nation-building is going to be extraordinarily high, at least at first. I'm sure that part of the justification for the military option is the potential for the deterrence of future attacks. More likely, America would have to periodically stomp on an Afghanistan or a Somalia just to remind the rogues what they would be in for should they decide to screw with us.

Balance that against the non-military option. Very low costs, less deterrence. Somewhere near the low-cost end of the spectrum are air strikes and missile attacks against specific targets.

To me, the cost of the war, plus the fact that that war is reminding me of 9/11 every day, plus the new problems a war brings, plus the fact that you can never be sure if the war is the main reason there have been no further attacks so far - to me, the cost is way too high. That answer would change somewhat if there were more successful attacks, but I think I'd be willing to accept a less spectacular terrorist attack every five years or so if I didn't have to wage an ongoing war. I'd certainly want to take some sort of action if it was always Bin Laden being the thorn in our side. But if the next bombing is another Tim McVeigh, what are you going to do? What if it's some group from South America that you never saw coming? You can't fully protect yourself from these kinds of attacks, and military campaigns like Afghanistan are only going to deter a certain segment of potential terrorists.

That being said, I wanted revenge as much as anyone after 9/11. At the time, I can't imagine being calculating enough to decide not to attack Afghanistan in pursuit of Bin Laden. But maybe it would have been the correct move.

I don’t think so. There was and is no major sectarian violence in Afghanistan. I agree Iraq was a costly mistake but I do not agree we are not better off for eliminating AQ in Afghanistan.


I totally disagree. If you remember the tape released by bin Laden right after 9/11 he gloated and compared the US and AQ to race horses with “his” horse looking real good after the attack. History tells us that if you “let em slide” they come for you with more vigor.

And the big “cost”, if we exclude Iraq, was the economic damage the attack caused as I posted. Combine this with the increase availability of and interest in WMD by AQ and you really have little choice. The idea that we should deal with AQ as a “police” action is ludicrous. I for one am not willing to wait for say an anthrax attack that could easily kill 100,000 Americans. 9/11 was the wake up call and we are still waking up.

This is a strange assessment Ted. Strange I say, because nearly ALL of the methodology that goes into targeting and cell exploitation are derivatives from investigative, intelligence and law enforcement institutions. That's why the military has recently employed so many Law Enforcement Professionals (LEP's), Weapons Intelligence Teams and Human Terrain Teams. True, when it comes time for a raid on a target, it is military assault forces.........but discounting the 'police action' aspect is naive and factually incorrect.

In answer to the questions

1. To what extent are today's problems a result of 9/11?

I'd say the main problem is the high price of oil. The economic situation is the result banks lending too readily and high interest rates and inflation as a result of that.

Also I don't know whether you would call it a problem (that would depend on your political views) but I would say a result of 9/11 is Bush's second term. Personally I don't think he would have got a second term if 9/11 hadn't happened.

2. Was the Afghanistan campaign a good move for America?

A good move? I would say it was the only move available. Would special forces teams making surgical strikes against Al-Queda been more effective, I would say so yes and probably far more successful, the only problem being that the Taliban government wouldn't allow such strikes to take place hence the need to launch a full scale invasion.

Sorry to be cynical but from a PR point of view too Bush had to make it look like he was doing something, small special forces units going in under the cover of night without news crews with them don't grab the publics attention as much as footage of submarines launching cruise missiles and aircraft carriers full of troops waiting to board helicopters does.

Also we have to remember that Afghanistan had the backing of the international community as a whole no one said (or would have dared say) "What are you doing invading a sovereign nation - You can't do that?". They said "yes go for it and we'll help you". The goodwill of the world's population was with America during the invasion of Afghanistan which was the woefully squanddered with invasion of Iraq. The invasion of Iraq then had the added effect of taking money, manpower and other resources away from the Afghan campaign. There are 140,000 US troops alone in Iraq compared to 17,000 in Afghanistan. (The total NATO force there comprises only 47,000 troops). If only half the resources that had been the diverted Iraq were in Afghanistan the problems there might have been over today.

I think the worst move and major problem as a result of Afghanistan has been the detention of enemy combatants at Guantanemo Bay and the potential human rights violations and outcry that has come from that. I think that is the one aspect of the Afghanistan campaign that has created the most friction in the international community and certainly pushed more and more young Muslims toward radicalism.

In conclusion I would say Afghanistan was the best move Bush could have made in the situation. I do not agree with Ted however that Afghanistan stopped future attacks on the US. I think that is the result of better internal security and increased funding to government departments that deal with anti-terror policing. Any result that would have happened due to Afghanistan has been countered by the invasion of Iraq and the continued detention of terror suspects at guentanemo bay. If anything these two events have put the US <and her allies> in more danger than ever.

Could Bin Laden's "horse" have fared any better than it has? Our response to his 20-man attack has been the continuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and all the money they are costing us. Plus (and here is the Butterfly Effect) we might also blame 9/11 for skyrocketing oil prices, an overburdened military, a weakened economy, a mortgage crisis, fewer civil rights, human rights violations, a damaged reputation in the eyes of the world, Pakistan on the edge of chaos - you can, if you choose, trace back a lot of bad stuff to 9/11.

I'm not suggesting that we should have let Bin Laden slide. Some form of retaliation was called for, in addition to tightening up security here at home. But you don't want to help his cause with a shortsighted response, either. The Russians occupied Afghanistan for years and were never able to eradicate their enemy - catching Bin Laden and/or eliminating Al Qaida was never a sure thing. Nation building is not a sure bet, either. So, how far into the muck of Afghanistan should we really have waded? Six years later, Bin Laden looks uncatchable, and AQ is still active, but now we have to prop up Karzai for some indefinite period. It would have been nice to be able to simply pack up those Special Forces units that were hunting OBL and wrap it up at some point, at least leaving Al Qaida off of the front page for a while.