CONNECT
NationofChange / Op-Ed
Published: Monday 5 September 2011
“The jihadi movement could have been split and undermined after 9/11 if the ‘crime against humanity’ had been approached as a crime.”
Was War the Only Answer to 9/11?
This is the 10th anniversary of the horrendous atrocities of Sept. 11, 2001, which, it is commonly held, changed the world.
The impact of the attacks is not in doubt. Just keeping to western and central Asia: Afghanistan is barely surviving, Iraq has been devastated and Pakistan is edging closer to a disaster that could be catastrophic.
On May 1, 2011, the presumed mastermind of the crime, Osama bin Laden, was assassinated in Pakistan. The most immediate significant consequences have also occurred in Pakistan. There has been much discussion of Washington’s anger that Pakistan didn’t turn over bin Laden. Less has been said about the fury among Pakistanis that the U.S. invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination. Anti-American fervor had already intensified in Pakistan, and these events have stoked it further.
One of the leading specialists on Pakistan, British military historian Anatol Lieven, wrote in The National Interest in February that the war in Afghanistan is “destabilizing and radicalizing Pakistan, risking a geopolitical catastrophe for the United States – and the world – which would dwarf anything that could possibly occur in Afghanistan.”
At every level of society, Lieven writes, Pakistanis overwhelmingly sympathize with the Afghan Taliban, not because they like them but because “the Taliban are seen as a legitimate force of resistance against an alien occupation of the country,” much as the Afghan mujahedeen were perceived when they resisted the Russian occupation in the 1980s.
These feelings are shared by Pakistan’s military leaders, who bitterly resent U.S. pressures to sacrifice themselves in Washington’s war against the Taliban. Further bitterness comes from the terror attacks (drone warfare) by the U.S. within Pakistan, the frequency of which was sharply accelerated by President Obama; and from U.S. demands that the Pakistani army carry Washington’s war into tribal areas of Pakistan that had been pretty much left on their own, even under British rule.
The military is the stable institution in Pakistan, holding the country together. U.S. actions might “provoke a mutiny of parts of the military,” Lieven writes, in which case “the Pakistani state would collapse very quickly indeed, with all the disasters that this would entail.”
The potential disasters are drastically heightened by Pakistan’s huge, rapidly growing nuclear weapons arsenal, and by the country’s substantial jihadi movement.
Both of these are legacies of the Reagan administration. Reagan officials pretended they did not know that Zia ul-Haq, the most vicious of Pakistan’s military dictators and a Washington favorite, was developing nuclear weapons and carrying out a program of radical Islamization of Pakistan with Saudi funding.
The catastrophe lurking in the background is that these two legacies might combine, with fissile materials leaking into the hands of jihadis. Thus we might see nuclear weapons, most likely “dirty bombs,” exploding in London and New York.
Lieven summarizes: “U.S. and British soldiers are in effect dying in Afghanistan in order to make the world more dangerous for American and British peoples.”
Surely Washington understands that U.S. operations in what has been christened “Afpak” – Afghanistan-Pakistan – might destabilize and radicalize Pakistan.
The most significant WikiLeaks documents to have been released so far are the cables from U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson in Islamabad, who supports U.S. actions in Afpak but warns that they “risk destabilizing the Pakistani state, alienating both the civilian government and military leadership, and provoking a broader governance crisis in Pakistan â(euro) .125.”
Patterson writes of the possibility that “someone working in (Pakistani government) facilities could gradually smuggle enough fissile material out to eventually make a weapon,” a danger enhanced by “the vulnerability of weapons in transit.”
A number of analysts have observed that bin Laden won some major successes in his war against the United States.
As Eric S. Margolis writes in The American Conservative in May, “(bin Laden) repeatedly asserted that the only way to drive the U.S. from the Muslim world and defeat its satraps was by drawing Americans into a series of small but expensive wars that would ultimately bankrupt them.”
That Washington seemed bent on fulfilling bin Laden’s wishes was evident immediately after the 9/11 attacks.
In his 2004 book “Imperial Hubris,” Michael Scheuer, a senior CIA analyst who had tracked Osama bin Laden since 1996, explains: “Bin Laden has been precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us. (He) is out to drastically alter U.S. and Western policies toward the Islamic world,” and largely achieved his goal.
He continues: “U.S. forces and policies are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world, something Osama bin Laden has been trying to do with substantial but incomplete success since the early 1990s. As a result, I think it is fair to conclude that the United States of America remains bin Laden’s only indispensable ally.” And arguably remains so, even after his death.
The succession of horrors across the past decade leads to the question: Was there an alternative to the West’s response to the 9/11 attacks?
The jihadi movement, much of it highly critical of bin Laden, could have been split and undermined after 9/11, if the “crime against humanity,” as the attacks were rightly called, had been approached as a crime, with an international operation to apprehend the suspects. That was recognized at the time, but no such idea was even considered in the rush to war. It is worth adding that bin Laden was condemned in much of the Arab world for his part in the attacks.
By the time of his death, bin Laden had long been a fading presence, and in the previous months was eclipsed by the Arab Spring. His significance in the Arab world is captured by the headline in a New York Times article by Middle East specialist Gilles Kepel: “Bin Laden Was Dead Already.”
That headline might have been dated far earlier, had the U.S. not mobilized the jihadi movement with retaliatory attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.
Within the jihadi movement, bin Laden was doubtless a venerated symbol but apparently didn’t play much more of a role for al-Qaida, this “network of networks,” as analysts call it, which undertake mostly independent operations.
Even the most obvious and elementary facts about the decade lead to bleak reflections when we consider 9/11 and its consequences, and what they portend for the future.
© 2011 Noam ChomskyDistributed by The New York Times Syndicate.
Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
ABOUT Noam Chomsky
Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, and activist. He is an Institute Professor and pressor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Techonology. Chomsky is well known in the academic and scientific communities as one of the fathers of modern linguistics, and a major figure of analytic philosophy. Chomsky is the author of more than 150 books and has received worldwide attention for his views.
FEATURE A
Connect with your friends
Find new content you might like and see what your friends are sharing!
46 comments on "Was War the Only Answer to 9/11?"
zU0xfH lihkugchmtvs
JaEi3P , [url=http://dovetpvrbafj.com/]dovetpvrbafj[/url], [link=http://ewifwzpbqtgg.com/]ewifwzpbqtgg[/link], http://gjfauehhwwas.com/
qTIYzd moluucpwlqeu
I cnanot tell a lie, that really helped.
September 16, 2011 12:32pm
war was the best answer for 9/11.
we spent years trying to get the Afghan Taliban to hand over bin laden for trial on criminal charges BEFORE 9/11.
the UN requests and resolutions were to no avail.
and Chomsky's silly talk about.......
"There has been much discussion of Washington’s anger that Pakistan didn’t turn over bin Laden. Less has been said about the fury among Pakistanis that the U.S. invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination. Anti-American fervor had already intensified in Pakistan, and these events have stoked it further."
...is no more than silly talk. If the Pakistanis don't like that we didn't listen to the lies of their government that "sure they would hand over bin Laden, but he's just isn't in Pakistan." .... too bad.
It isn't the US that's to blame for Pakistan's being a failed and increasingly dangerous state, it's the people in charge of that sorry place.
September 16, 2011 7:59pm
My recollection was that Mullah Omar demanded to see some evidence before turning him over and the U.S. demanded that he do it cause we say so. What if we had called the bluff, it is was one and shown sone easy intelligence that wasn't crucial in protecting identities and if he refused, he went back on his word and the US would have tried to negotiate in good faith instead of as a colonial/parental master that must be obeyed.
September 22, 2011 11:01pm
your recollection about Omar demanding evidence is correct. your recollection that Omar said that he would hand him over is not.
he said that he would never hand him over to any non-Islamic jurisdiction.
of course, if your recollections were real good, you would recall that the UN had demanded that Omar hand bin Laden over for years prior to 9/11 .... that Omar was still dicking around sorta takes the idea that we should show "evidence" to that illiterate asshole into the realm of utter stupidity.
'call his bluff' is pretty stupid as well. whatever evidence we supplied would be 'studied' at length and then doubtless found insufficient.
September 15, 2011 10:28pm
Norm, day one looking at how those building fell, I smelled a rat and have never given up the fight for true justice.
Just imagine that in 2000 America super secret military was sitting on an amazing discovery, a paint on explosive that can melt steel and limits noise by its chemical makeup, even more amazing that we know no more about that technology today.
Its rather a long and technical read but well worth your time, please read it; you will not be dissatisfied but you will be angry.
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ/...
We have all the proof we will ever need need, this study was requested by the same government that caused 9/11 and subsequently buried this information because it proves that thermitic material has been found in every dust sample from the WTC event.
September 11, 2011 2:26pm
Thanks for the link to http://www.wtc7.net/index.html
The evidence is chilling.
September 11, 2011 1:32pm
A conclusion from this critique could be that Al- Qaida used (is using) a form of the Reagan Doctrine against us.
September 07, 2011 9:04pm
Ten years ago I would not have believed in the complicity or conspiracy of the minions of global corporations in the 9/11 attacks. Now I do. Bush/Cheney/et al, at least saw this coming and looked the other way or worse...
Too many things went wrong all at the same time to be a coincidence. Why were the occupants of the second tower ordered not to evacuate when the first tower was hit? Why did our air defense system play no timely part? Why was there no real forensic investigation of the crash sites? All the evidence was hauled to the dump.
Now, it seems that the tenth anniversery in going to be more of a celebration than a memorial and is being used to remind everyone to be afraid and depend on the government to keep them safe. Also fan the flames of hate.
September 07, 2011 2:19am
All do not buy the official version of 9/11
We know that there is only one big story of 9/11, which the United States government presented and most of the people around the world accepted it as true. However, there were some who had some minor reservations about the details but they accepted the main account. Noam Chomsky happens to be one of them.
But what does the truth movement about the 9/11 say? A lot of experts, physicists, metallurgists, and engineers have offered their views that contradict the official version. Can some luminary explain why the opinions of these experts have been marginalised, ignored or not taken into account to look into the whole scenario of 9/11? There are far too many questions still in the air.
The following paper written by two experts throws some light on The Pentagon Attack on 9/11. Let's hope, among others, Professor Chomsky will also find time to read it:
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/09/06/the-pentagon-attack-on-911/
September 10, 2011 2:25am
All do not buy the official version of 9/11
We know that there is only one big story of 9/11, which the United States government presented and most of the people around the world accepted it as true. However, there were some who had some minor reservations about the details but they accepted the main account. Noam Chomsky happens to be one of them.
But what does the truth movement about the 9/11 say? A lot of experts, physicists, metallurgists, and engineers have offered their views that contradict the official version. Can some luminary explain why the opinions of these experts have been marginalised, ignored or not taken into account to look into the whole scenario of 9/11? There are far too many questions still in the air.
The following paper written by two experts throws some light on The Pentagon Attack on 9/11. Let's hope, among others, Professor Chomsky will also find time to read it:
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/09/06/the-pentagon-attack-on-911/
September 06, 2011 7:53pm
Thanks Bruce. "War was not the only answer to 9/11, it was the only reason for 9/11!"
And Afghanistan and Iraq were both planned before 9/11. A friend of mine had a call at 6:30pm on 9/11 from Washington. "We are going after Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan".
Jeopardy. You get the answer then tell what the question is.
September 06, 2011 5:26pm
PFFFFFT !!
September 06, 2011 9:44am
Now, how to get out of this quagmire? Will Noam run in 2012?
September 22, 2011 11:03pm
you want Chomsky running into a quagmire?
September 06, 2011 8:51am
Mr. Chomsky, I have read and respected your work for decades on your thorough analyses of American agression and deception in the insane attempt to dominate the world's economy. You are an intelligent, courageous, honest and decent person with outstanding character and one of the few true heroes in American culture. This article is far beneath your level.
Please, for the sake of the world and the well being of the United States of America, and everything you believe in, contact David Ray Griffin. Read his work, meet him, get to know him. If you disagree with his assessments on 9/11, give reasons with the elegant expertise you possess. You may just discover that 9/11 was just another element of "Manufactured Consent."
Please don't parrot government propaganda. It doesn't become you.
September 06, 2011 3:28am
I wept on the morning of 9/11 ten years ago, because I knew that instead of showing leadership and integrity the US govt would take the worst possible course of action in response. Everything that has happened since then just confirms my feeling at that time.
September 05, 2011 11:18pm
Thank you. Absolutely right on.
September 05, 2011 11:14pm
Too many incorrect statements in this article from a very intelligent man. Bin Laden was not killed in 2011, but died in 2001. The 9/11 attacks were not carried out by hijackers who were sent by bin Laden, as 7 of those accused were still alive after 9/11. It is disappointing to see Chomsky continue the misinformation narrative of Cheney and Bush, that is so clearly false.
September 05, 2011 10:23pm
The plan to go to war in Iraq for the sole purpose of regime change in an effort to gain control of the oil was planned long before 9/11. That was just the excuse to carry it out (lame and flimsy and unfounded as it was). It's all documented on Project For New American Century (www.newamericancentury.org). It was documented back in 1998, and the document is signed by all the usual suspects: Wolfowitz, Rummy, Bush(es), Cheney, etc. There was never any interest in stopping terrorism. How could there be when you're the worst offender? They used 9/11 as the pretext to justify something that was already in the works years before. 9/11 was too good an opportunity to pass up. They should all be tried at the Hague.
Everyone reading this probably knows this already.
September 06, 2011 1:33pm
Where did we put the oil?
September 05, 2011 9:33pm
Yes, and perhaps now we need to track down Bush and the rest of them, and bring those *criminals* to trial...
September 05, 2011 7:39pm
I can remember as the U.S. went to war in 2001 the Fox "News"-talk-hate-radio-"freedom fries" gang mockingly saying that if Al Gore were President, he would be treating 911 as a crime instead of as an act of war. Which, according to Professor Chomsky, would have been exactly the right thing to do.
There is no proof Bin Laden is dead - only the word of a band of notorious liars. Jesse Ventura is correct - no body
September 05, 2011 3:50pm
And we're so arrogant our government will try to make it sound like their problem, not ours.
September 05, 2011 3:26pm
The tragedy of 9/11 was conceived by, paid for, and most likely carried out by the so called "shadow cabinet in waiting" right here on American soil. Everyone that wonders about the explosions before the plane hit, the way the towers fell, and so on and so on are too afraid to speak up. Who in the inner circle would risk speaking up even if they did find proof, or were told about it? There are enough loose ends from 9/11 to fill the Pentagon. Capitalism bred the hungry monsters and they will continue to eat until nothing is left, unless enough people who are not mindless sheep are brave enough to start the revolution. And they better hurry up, because the internet and facebook alone will lead them right to us. Clearly electing someone won't work. Anyone that gets that high has already been bought and paid for, Obama is our proof of that.
September 05, 2011 1:39pm
Thank you, Noam Chomsky.
Re: "That was recognized at the time, but no such idea was even considered in the rush to war. It is worth adding that bin Laden was condemned in much of the Arab world for his part in the attacks."
The plans for the invasion of Iraq, as you're well aware, were drawn up well before September 11th, years before. That tragedy became an opportunity for the members of the Project for the New American Century to carry out their plans. Somehow, somewhen, that group--called by one military historian "a shadow cabinet in waiting" judging by later Cabinet appointments--would go to war.
Thank you again.
September 05, 2011 1:00pm
I must second/third the calls for the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to be heard. Until the truth of that day is exposed, any analysis is superfluous. Forgetting any other evidence, Building 7 was obviously brought down by a controlled implosion which would mean that it had to be rigged in the weeks before. The evidence of nano-thermite, the destruction of crime scene evidence, the refusal of NIST to look for explosive materials, along with numerous eyewitnesses of multiple explosions mean that until a fully thorough independent investigation is both executed and given appropriate media coverage no one can move on. War was not the answer to 9/11 it was the MOTIVE for it. Plenty of loose ends, no bodies, no baggage, no black boxes, no wreckage - but 3 terrorist passports found. The authorities and the Media will not allow anyone no matter how credible to present any evidence that doesn't fit even the original members of the 9/11 Commission who now question their panel's findings. It is an insult to the victims their families and the 1000 first responders who have died in the past 10 years. No one has been indicted, tried or convicted of this crime and until they are how can we possibly discuss and debate a foreign and domestic policy which has evolved to where it has because of this one event.
September 16, 2011 8:05pm
I tend toward the "they let it happen" theory but Building 7 always bothered me. Asa former delivery worker (bike messenger) I can attest that 7 WTC was not on the same plaza as the tall buildings. It was on a side street across form the twin towers. It was a dumpy building, which I do not see how it could have been affected at the distance it stood at form the Big twin bangs.
September 05, 2011 12:55pm
The war machine must be fed. War is a very profitable business. Ask the employees at Boeing or other war machine making places if they would vote for an anti-war candidate. I knew people who were children of these workers that voted for war candidates so their parents would have a job. Until people realize that in America war is a profitable business that supports millions of families then a change might be possible. We need to redirect their mindset. At the moment these are the highest paid workers of the middle class. This is the secret that nobody wants to say out loud. 50% of defense industries are in California. Now you know how Reagan got elected in this so called liberal state. The guy next to me at work voted for this guy because his mom worked at a defense plant. He was voting against his interest but for his moms interest. Result was California went from one of best education systems in America to one of the worst. Unions went down the tube. Homelessness increased. Defense spending or wasteful spending for unproductive commodities increased. Communities detoriated. Supression of common sense increased. Attacks on intellectuals, liberals, anti-war people increased. Religious right influence in government increased. Like Stalin said, the capitalist can pay or bribe 50% of the population to kill the other 50%. Stalin should be hailed as a prophet, his prophesy is now a reality. The country is set up to let loose the 50% that are willing to destroy the other 50%. The only solution is to defund the 50%. Stop war now. Hare Krishna
September 05, 2011 12:42pm
Terrorism is primarily a crime against humanity elevated to a form of warfare against lawful governments, inspired by some ideology and based on the wrong belief that acts of last resort, particularly those that harm innocent life, might somehow resolve a grievance and bring satisfaction to the individual or group finding no other recourse for real or imagined injustice.
Professor Chomsky's headline "Was War the Only Answer to 9/11?" is much too kind in presuming the need to question the obvious. Something like "Did you have to do that, you naughty boy?" Of course not!
The only question left demanding an answer is why wasn't it evident in the aftermath of 9/11 that war was not the only answer. But maybe it was evident.
Certainly, it must be evident by now that war has been the wrong answer.
September 05, 2011 12:38pm
I don't think the concept of 'challenging' Obama was anywhere in Dr. Chomsky's above essay. How you added that up, only God knows. Well, God and maybe Fox News....
September 05, 2011 12:17pm
War was not the only answer to 9/11, it was the only reason for 9/11!
September 05, 2011 11:15pm
That is correct. Perpetual war and expansion of the American military Empire was the reason for the false flag attacks of 9/11.
September 05, 2011 1:03pm
yes, the US government most likely planned the attacks which is one reason why it was never investigated as a crime like it should have been
Yes, right, as usual. Help us determine who should challenge Obama, please. Let us know what we should do, in broad strokes. We'll do it. Thank you, Dr. Chomsky.
September 06, 2011 4:46pm
There is no one good enough to challenge President Obama , The republican candidates that are out there, are ignorant of fact, have absolutely no substance or credibility to lead this country. The republicans have burned their bridges !
September 06, 2011 1:36pm
lemming
September 05, 2011 11:50am
If one was to read "The American Century" and the cosmic cowboys who came on the stage of US politics with coup d'etat of DICK/Bush & Co., war was a predetermined response to 911 event. The event itself is comparable to Nazi's burning of their parliament to take absolute control of the war machinery and of the mind control apparatus. The events of 911 was the 8th ball that diverted attention form the heads of CEOs, board members, banksters, stock analysts after dot-com bust and directed all that anger to outside "enemies". This strategy was supposed to revitalize the war economy. Alas, it is back firing so far.
September 05, 2011 11:46am
Is it not possible that Ben Laden was a product of Corporate creation? Having a bogeyman capable of sticking a thorn into America's thick hide, so as to prod it into an aggressive self destructive reaction by letting loose the dogs of war, played right into their profit oriented plans.
With Bush in the white house, it was the most auspicious chance to grab some quick but vast capital gains ,while simultaneously leveraging greater political control on our freedoms and thus further enslaving the American Dream to a nightmare of 'hope'.
I cannot believe that there was no collusion between that small band of desert dwellers and the Masters of the Universe to bring about 9/11. Globalization is proof positive that those who would Rule the World, care nothing for America or it's peoples ... only for profit and membership in that compassionless club gathered in Galt's Gulch.
September 05, 2011 11:45am
I second the suggestion of Robert Stahl that the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth site be visited by anyone with an open mind as to what actually occurred at Ground Zero on 9/11/2001. These are scientists, engineers, and degreed professionals who can not and will not accept the "official" explanation for the free fall collapse of 3 modern, steel structured buildings in less than 8 hours of a single day. No "wingnuts" need apply.
I particular, WTC Building 7, which was not hit by any airplane, missile, or projectile collapsed in its own footprint in less than a 10 second span. According to the NIST report on its demise, there were numerous debris/office fires that weakened the entire steel structure so dramatically that it just collapsed under its own weight. That is a finding that this engineer just can not accept.
Please check it out at http://ae911truth.org/en/home.html
September 05, 2011 11:16am
It might be wise at this juncture to follow the actions of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth at AE911Truth.org and their 10th anniversary presentation asking for accountability. This is professional in a way we have not seen yet, so far, for the actions taken place so iconic on that date, but repetitive, so repetitive it boggles the senses.
September 05, 2011 10:39am
Noam, once again you analysis is right on. Bin Laden got everything he wanted after 9/11 when American leaders decided to preemptively start the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in retaliation. Bin Laden knew he could never defeat American forces on the battlefield. His plan from the start, as you point out, was to destabilize us economically. He even said as much before 9/11. US war making has lead to the death of many fine young Americans and thousands of innocent civilians. This war making and American jingoism have worked to turn many in the Muslim world against us. Had we treated Bin Laden as the international criminal that he was from the beginning and marshaled international law enforcement to track him down and bring him to justice the terrible cost in human suffering could of been avoided and the trillions of dollars lost or stolen making war would now be available to spend in the United States addressing our own dire domestic needs.
September 06, 2011 8:39am
However... defense contractor profits would not have skyrocketed and the members of congress who own large portions of their stock would not have gotten much wealthier. That... of course... was the plan.