9/12 was the fateful day

Posted By Clyde Prestowitz Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - 5:03 PM Share

The recent remembrances of 9/11 have reminded me, once again, that it was 9/12, not 9/11, that was the truly fateful day.

Of course, 9/11 was a day of heinous crimes that will live in infamy along with December 7, 1941, and many other days of similar atrocities. But 9/11 in no way determined America's future path. It presented challenges and options, but not decisions or foregone conclusions about how to respond.

In the years, months, and days immediately preceding 9/11, attitudes around the world toward the United States had been undergoing a gradual, subtle shift from the World War II legacy of admiration, gratitude, respect, and goodwill to increasing skepticism, alienation, and even hostility. A variety of factors underlay this shift, but the core element was a sense in much of the rest of the world that America increasingly no longer defined its interests, as it had long done, in terms of building a stable global order based on mutual consultation and a rough rule of law. Rather, it was increasingly seen as a whiner and sometimes even as a bully.

Yet, the immediate aftermath of the attacks of 9/11 revealed, as perhaps nothing else could have, the lingering depth of respect, gratitude, and affection for the United States even in the countries of greatest skepticism. Jacques Chirac, president of France, a country notorious for its anti-Americanism, immediately became the first foreign leader to visit New York and the site of the attack. Le Monde, the left-leaning and somewhat anti-American leading journal of France, proclaimed in banner headlines: "Nous sommes tous Americain" -- We are all Americans. The French flag was flown at half-mast.

For the first time in its history and without a request from the United States, NATO invoked Article 5, the provision under which an attack on one member is considered an attack on all and all undertake to defend the one. U.S. embassies from London to Moscow to Beijing to Tokyo to Singapore to virtually everywhere else in the world were buried in flowers and surrounded by sympathizers mourning America's losses. In one heinous moment, al Qaeda had managed to reverse the tide of alienation from America that had been rising.

The potential for a dramatic, positive reset of America's role and relations in the world was enormous. The atmosphere was pregnant with possibilities. Imagine what might have happened if President George W. Bush had taken the opportunity to do a global satellite television hookup. Using the time zones to his advantage, he could have rotated around the world expressing gratitude -- "Thank you London, thank you Paris, thank you Moscow, thank you Beijing. I'm going to invite your leaders, my good friends Tony, Jacques, Vladimir, Jintao (and others) to Camp … no, to the ranch this weekend. And we're all going to discuss this evil and develop a plan jointly to crush it and stamp it out."

At that moment, the president could have had anything he wanted.

That, of course, was the road not taken, and to quote Robert Frost, "that has made all the difference."

EXPLORE:THUMBS
 

RUSSELLGALLIEN98

3:06 AM ET

September 14, 2011

android tablet

This is a great web site. Good clean interface and very informative blogs. I will be coming back soon, thanks for the great blog. android tablet

 

JUPITER

3:34 AM ET

September 14, 2011

Wait wait wait wait...

The reason for the drastic decline in global support for the United States was that George Bush didn't go on television and thank world leaders for their condolences and well-wishes?

 

KUNINO

4:14 PM ET

September 14, 2011

No, the reason for the drastic decline ...

... was, in large degree, that one week after 9/11, George Bush went on television to in effect declare war on the world. His "those who are not for us are against us" mantra of the evening was extremely ominous, and his claim that "they"-- and I have no feeling that he had any clear idea of who that "they" was -- "hate us because of our freedom of association." This claim was gibberish. I doubt that many Americans understood it at all. Foreigners certainly didn't. It was a very strange justification for the great military response the president was promising, or threatening.

Foreigners don't like being told that the world's greatest military power feels free to attack them if it feels like it -- the Bush promise -- and in this, they're exactly as Americans would be under similar circumstances. One of the many sorrows of that first couple of weeks after 9/11 was that no authoritative Washington figure felt empowered to say anything akin to "hold on here, let's make sure our response to this atrocity is appropriate."

Agreement seems more widespread since then that the response hasn't been all that appropriate -- or successful. Politicians were orating at the weekend about how safe Americans feel today. Police nearby carrying military-style firearms and wearing head and body armor made a joke of each such claim.

On 9/11, al-Qaida demonstrate a fascinating skill -- how to wreak great harm on America while evading, with 100 per cent success, any official US interdiction. All it took was for the terrorists to surrender their own lives -- which they seem to have done before a single US military aircraft took the air. Eight years and two months later, the US government was unable to interdict a bomber also prepared to give up his life (although possibly he chickened) who flew across America from Amsterdam to land in Detroit. In December 2009, good luck or the grace of God protected America from harm. On 9/11, it didn't. The bomber seems ridiculous. His achievement wasn't.

9/11 was a brilliant achievement for terrorists. Their plan was to bring America to bankruptcy and they have come close to doing that. It also was to lower America in global esteem. Mr Bush did that pretty much all by himself.

The recent public joy at the killing of one man, Osama bin Laden, was in comparison very small potatoes. He's gone, but he's left behind a blueprint for how to fool and defeat the military power of the United States. Lots of people have been paying attention, and American foreign and military policy seems to have been an equation of religious Islam with the former global godless communism. Military powers such as Afghanistan and Iraq are much less frightening than the USSR used to be, and have been degraded militarily as the USSR and PRC never were. We have today a US-supported government claimed to torture its citizens in Iraq just like Hussein's, and a habitually corrupt one in Afghanistan. It seems possible, perhaps likely, that after America pulls out of the latter nation, the political force running the country in August 2001 will come to office once more, and still plugging its pre-9/11 policies. Not much of a return for all those lost and blasted American lives at home and abroad, and far, far less than George Bush hoped he was guaranteeing in September 2001.

 

MARTY MARTEL

3:56 AM ET

September 14, 2011

9/11 attacks was Pakistan's revenge

Let us examine some facts:

1. Nobody forced Pakistani government to facilitate relocation of Osama bin Laden from Sudan to Afghanistan in 1996. Benazir Bhutto’s democratic government of Pakistan chose to do so of its own free will.

2. As Sandy Berger, Clinton’s national security advisor told 9/11 Commission in 2004, Pakistani Army was the midwife of Taliban. UN report on Bhutto killing released on 4/15/10 confirmed this fact when it noted that "The PAKISTANI MILITARY ORGANIZED AND SUPPORTED THE TALIBAN TO TAKE CONTROL OF AFGHANISTAN IN 1996“.

3. Declassified DIA Washington D.C., "IIR (intelligence Information Report) Pakistan Involvement in Afghanistan," dated November 7, 1996 states how "Pakistan's ISI is heavily involved in Afghanistan," and also details different roles various ISI officers play in Afghanistan. Stating that Pakistan uses sizable numbers of its Pashtun-based Frontier Corps in Taliban-run operations in Afghanistan, the document clarifies that, "these Frontier Corps elements are utilized in command and control; training; and when necessary combat“.

4. Declassified U.S. Department of State, Cable "Pakistan Support for Taliban" from Islamabad dated Sept. 26, 2000 states that "while Pakistani support for the Taliban has been long-standing, the magnitude of recent support is unprecedented." In response Washington orders the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad to immediately confront Pakistani officials on the issue and to advise Islamabad that the U.S. has "seen reports that Pakistan is providing the Taliban with materiel, fuel, funding, technical assistance and military advisors. [The Department] also understand[s] that large numbers of Pakistani nationals have recently moved into Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban, apparently with the tacit acquiescence of the Pakistani government." Additional reports indicate that direct Pakistani involvement in Taliban military operations has increased.

5. Pakistani ISI Director General Mahmud Ahmad had asked Omar Sheikh (the kidnapper of Daniel Pearl) to send $100,000 from a Dubai bank account to Mohammed Atta (the lead 9/11 hijacker) one year before those attacks. Mohammad Atta used that $100,000 for flight training, living expenses and to purchase flight tickets on the day of 9/11 attacks in US and returned unspent $25,000 back to same Dubai account. Musharraf was forced to retire ISI director General Mahmud Ahmad after Wall Street Journal exposed General Ahmad as the chief financier of 9/11 attacks. Pakistani ISI was heavily involved in planning of 9/11 attacks as corroborated by former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham.

So in a way, Pakistani government was in charge of Afghanistan when 9/11 attacks were carried out and hence Pakistani government was responsible for those attacks.

Pakistani ISI planned and executed the whole 9/11 attack to teach US a lesson for US refusing to deliver F-16 jet fighters during 1990s after Pakistan had already paid for them.

Bush administration decided to whitewash Pakistan’s role in 9/11 attacks after forcing Pakistan to join US fight against terrorism against its own wishes.

So Pakistan decided to play a duplicitous game of running with the terrorist hares while hunting with the American hounds. Poor US can not even use its aid leverage to force Pakistan to stop sheltering Haqqani’s HQN in North Waziristan and Mullah Omar’s QST in Quetta who kill US/NATO troops day in and day out in Afghanistan because US needs Pakistan help in ferrying supplies to those very troops!

Previous US ambassador Anne Patterson to Pakistan, wrote in a secret review in 2009 that ‘Pakistan's Army and ISI are covertly sponsoring four militant groups - Haqqani‘s HQN, Mullah Omar‘s QST, Al Qaeda and LeT - and will not abandon them for any amount of US money‘, as diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show.

Ambassador Patterson had NO reason to mislead her own State Department and U. S. government.

 

VANG1234

10:19 AM ET

September 14, 2011

hi

It is no longer enough to just have the basics when smartphones and tablets should be available to all.how to get your ex back

 

TUSAN62

12:10 PM ET

September 14, 2011

9/12 was the fateful day

Nice job so far.
Thanks- droid accessories

 

GOODGRIEFCB

1:36 PM ET

September 14, 2011

right on the money

as usual Mr Prestowitz is right on the money
- the decline of the world's view of America post-marshall plan
- the huge wave of sympathy for the US immediately after the attacks
- failure to recognize this as a police action ( albeit a very serious one )
- failure to distinguish between non-state actors, and state actors
- failure to capitalize on the opportunity presented
- a total lack of humint in any of the countries concerned
- a near-total lack of cultural understanding of the countries concerned
- the total lack of relevant language skills amongst the US agencies involved

"The potential for a dramatic, positive reset of America's role and relations in the world was enormous.." and we managed to not only walk thru it, but REVERSE it
the question to be asked is "how" and "why"

as for those who have not read their history
( Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq )
the short answer is - you reap what you sow ...
aka a boomerang may come back to hit your head
wikipedia
Afganistan / Pakistan - As part of its Cold War strategy, the White House in the United States began recruiting, financing and arming Mujahideen fighters during Operation Cyclone in 1979, which was aimed to defeat the Soviets. President Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, warned at the time that this might prompt a Soviet intervention (in an interview published in the 15–21 January 1998 issue of the French journal Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski claimed that these measures were in fact specifically designed to provoke a Soviet military intervention.[86] In March 1979, Hafizullah Amin took over as prime minister, retaining the position of field marshal and becoming vice-president of the Supreme Defence Council. Taraki remained President and in control of the army until September 14 when he was killed.
To bolster the Parcham faction, the Soviet Union decided to intervene on December 24, 1979, when the Red Army invaded its southern neighbor. Over 100,000 Soviet troops took part in the invasion, which was backed by another one hundred thousand Afghan military men and supporters of the Parcham faction. In the meantime, Hafizullah Amin was killed and replaced by Babrak Karmal. In response to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Reagan administration in the U.S. increased arming and funding of the Mujahideen who began a guerilla war thanks in large part to the efforts of Charlie Wilson and CIA officer Gust Avrakotos. Early reports estimated that $6–20 billion had been spent by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia[87] but more recent reports state that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia provided as much as up to $40 billion[88][89] in cash and weapons, which included over two thousand FIM-92 Stinger surface-to-air missiles, for building up Islamic groups against the Soviet Union. The U.S. handled most of its support through Pakistan's ISI. Saudi Arabia was also providing financial support. Leaders such as Ahmad Shah Massoud received only minor aid compared to Hekmatyar and some of the other parties, although Massoud was named the "Afghan who won the cold war" by the Wall Street Journal.

Iraq - Saddam started his career as a US protege and ally
no need to post background material here

 

BUBBLE BURSTER

2:05 PM ET

September 14, 2011

Not about 9/12

9/12 here is a stand in for the same tired critique of the Bush Administration.

On 9/12 and the couple of days afterward itself the situation was handled masterfully. Reassuring the American people, differentiating between Islam and Islamist terror etc. Even the original discussions on Afghanistan and the resulting choice to go with CIA/SOF strategy versus large conventional force was good. I suspect most of the critique the author has are decisions and actions throughout the next two years.

If this sloppy, broad-brush approach is the author's analysis of security issues maybe he should stick to his blog' self-identified specialty of trade.

 

XTIANGODLOKI

3:58 PM ET

September 14, 2011

Bush bashing is stale

Yes, Bush was a terrible president, the worst one in the last century IMO. However I don't see the point to bashing him further as he has been out of the office for a while now. As much as I like Obama, if he were in Bush's shoes on 9/12 I honestly don't think he will do what the author suggested Bush should do either. Of course, unlikely Bush I don't think Obama would have tried to politicize WMDs and use it justify invading Iraq.

 

VERBATIM

9:50 PM ET

September 15, 2011

Trouble with simple truth

It is true that truth will set you free, but only if you can laugh at it, be ashamed of it, and sometimes even hate it, assuming that you can see it as it stares you in the face.

 

MATTCC1989

10:52 PM ET

September 23, 2011

GOD GIVEN GIFT????

You say that "9/11 was a God given gift in the minds of the neocon zionist war machine. The terrorist savages handed the neon zionists a great excuse and a perfect scenario to build a case for the "nightmare" scenario. The problem of course was there best netbook 2011 uk was not a real country behind the attacks and this was orchestrated by subhuman barbarians. The neocon Theory Test Practice zionist did need a target, though and Afghanistan or Pakistan were way to far from Israel and really did not fit into the agenda. Iraq was just to the East, GWB was already pissed at Saddam and could easily be manipulated and it was a perfect place to set up the US military basis to protect Israel on the eastern front."

come on man what an absolute load of rubbish you are talking, it was nothing to do with a god given gift.

 

Clyde Prestowitz is the president of the Economic Strategy Institute and writes on the global economy for FP.

Read More