Better the Devil You Know
Jesse Walker | February 24, 2006, 11:11am
The Village Voice's Jarrett Murphy reports from the nether regions of the "9/11 Truth Movement," that collection of activist-sleuths who don't accept the official account of September 11. Some of them are cagy about admitting it, but in general they seek solace in the comforting thought that Bush and his cronies were behind the attacks.
They don't call it a comforting thought, of course:
"I'd love to be proven wrong. I would love for someone to come to me and say I'm full of shit. It hasn't happened," says [Dylan] Avery.
That's a standard cliche of the fringe theorist: that he'd "love to be proven wrong." But is there anyone in the country who wouldn't be delighted to learn that the forces behind 9/11 are based in Washington, D.C.? That the enemy is not some exotic conspiracy of mysteriously motivated foreigners who speak impenetrable languages and fade easily into an alien landscape, but a familiar group of Republicans with Middle American accents who would be ousted the moment their cabal came to light? The Bush-did-it theory lends itself to a tidy movie ending, a conclusion far preferable to the endless bloody soap opera we've landed in instead.
There are many reasons I don't believe the president plotted 9/11. The biggest is that I'm just not optimistic enough to think the problem could be eliminated that easily.
mr.x | February 24, 2006, 2:46pm | #
"Then maybe the government should have taken that into consideration, before launching an unnecessary invasion on false pretenses. Or if they HAD gone through with the invasion, maybe they could have at least listened to, rather than fired, the military advisers who said we'd need a LOT more troops than what we were willing to send over there." - Jennifer
That was the basic internal debate in the US government, so of course they took that into consideration. There is no question the US, and the region, is better off without the Baathists in power (Hussein did not rule alone), the problem always was is it feasible to replace him with someone better, and worth the cost to do so?
This is the legitimate, and serious question, which should have been the main topic of discussion outside of government as well, but unfortunately the opposition parties & groups in the US could only scream "Halliburton, No Blood for Oil, Bu$h is doing it to enrich his buddies, etc." in either direct or implied form. Their necessary critical role was abdicated by taking positions which made their supporters happy, but which were ludicrous.
I am unsure whether a more intrusive US military presence, with many more soldiers walking around and arresting people, would have greatly improved the situation. It could have made it worse, by providing more targets, and relieving the Iraqis from having to develop their own security forces. This is something that is given a lot of consideration in the military and government, and the belief is that a greater military presence would cause more harm than good.
mr.x | February 24, 2006, 4:17pm | #
"but is the US as a whole better off?" - Jennifer
Is the US as a whole better off without the Baathists in power? No, I am certain that there are individuals and groups in the US who were receiving financial & logistical support from the Baathists who are much worse off now. As I stated before, the question is whether the Baathists can be replaced with someone better: I am not sure they can considering how many people outside Iraq are opposed to this endeavour.
"The amount of Iraqis with essential services like electricity is actually lower now than it was before we got there." - Jennifer
Baathist strongholds in Sunni areas have less electricity than before the war, areas less supportive of the Baathists have more now. Overall production has varied between somewhat above & below pre-war averages for the past 2 years, according to the NY Times. Not that I think this is particularly relevant to this discussion. The Tikritis and various foreign jihadis would not be mollified with a few more hours per day of electricity.
http://www.iraqieconomy.org/home/infra/electricity/key/electricityproduction/view
"Hussein was already pretty well-contained with the no-fly zones in effect; we actually had more control over Iraq then than we do now." - Jennifer
It is unlikely that the no-fly zones could have been sustained for much longer. Russia, France, and China were working very hard to end them, and likely would have succeeded by now.
It is difficult to respond to the assertion that having planes overhead on occasion (being shot at to boot) gives more control over a country than having planes overhead AND 120,000 troops on the ground. The latter is far more expensive, of course, but gives you more influence over the country.
Iran is a serious concern, but the problems raised in invading Iran are greater than for Iraq on both an ideological (ie from the "false pretenses / HalliOilBu$hitler" crowd), and practical (Scowcroft) basis. The Iranians have been working very hard on their nuclear weapons program since well before 2001: the Iraq invasion may have slowed it somewhat due to the need to disperse their facilities to protect against potential air strikes.
r0ver | February 24, 2006, 5:24pm | #
Jennifer,
"What was the conspirators' motivation, do you think?"
ok, honestly, I don't know any more about this than the next guy, and I'm still on the fence about whether the government was involved, but I'll keep going here: I'm in crimethink's camp on this one. I think the conspirators wanted a guaranteed way to scare the shit out of OUR country so they could control it more, um, fascistly. scared people do what they're told and don't ask about 'rights.'
"If they wanted an excuse to invade Iraq, why did they start with Afghanistan first?"
PR. there was no 911-related reason to attack Iraq. hitting Afghanistan made them look like they had a real plan.
"And if they were able to pull off such a brilliant stunt without getting caught, then why couldn't they also make it look like Iraq really DID have WMDs, rather than changing stories and saying "Oh, uh, we went there to establish a democracy; that was our intent all along?"
this is a mystery. they're not Stupid, but maybe they can't get it right every time.
"And why did they claim the majority of non-existent hijackers were from Saudi Arabia if they didn't want to invade that country? In light of what happened after the attack, wouldn't it have made more sense to blame Afghans and Iraqis?"
the roaches have lots of friends in the SA government, maybe. easier to get identities from there.
all in all, what I think is that probably the government didn't plan the attacks, but knew about them, didn't stop them, and put a plan in place to milk the aftershocks for all they were worth.
