Revisiting 9/11 attacks and Boston bombings
The recent Boston bombings are reminiscent of the infamous attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, although the Boston explosions were far less in magnitude in terms of destruction and number of casualties. As I was watching the news unfolding about Boston bombings on television, it instantly brought to mind a little talk I had with my mentor and friend Dr. James Willis from Ball State University a day after President George W. Bush announced his country’s intention to invade Iraq.
We discussed the duration of the war. I suggested that the war would last for a few years, and Dr. Willis contemplated that it would last more than five years. Although — then — I was surprised by his view, my mentor was correct; the war on Iraq lasted for almost a decade. However, both of our views were against the dominant views expressed by political pundits and talking heads on the US mainstream television stations who suggested it would last a few months.
Against expectations, the Iraqis did not receive US forces with flowers but on the contrary resisted them, suffering significant losses as the war prolonged. On these lines, I had a conversation with my classmate, Dr. Richard Otto, from East Stroudsburg University. The crux of the conversation was whether the US should pull out of Iraq or stay the course. I suggested that the US should pull out of Iraq. I pointed out that the war was going against the interests of the US, and it would cause irreparable damage to its image globally.
Most people have a positive perception of Americans, and consequently their country. Professionally, they are believed to be good planners, organizers, creative and innovative, and problem-solvers. They are also known for possessing other positive personal traits, such as being fair, open-minded, accessible, fun loving, compassionate and trendy. Overall, Americans are perceived almost as super people and good models to emulate. These qualities, put together with those of being distinctively fair and accessible, may explain a worldwide phenomenon, where foreigners often volunteer to share their personal affairs and local political issues with American tourists and visitors who are total strangers. This denotes trust and respect.
However, the war on Iraq by the US, without a mandate from the United Nations, and the subsequent events, such as the torture and abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, stained that positive image and those respected qualities. Instead of invading Iraq, the US could have called for establishing democracy in that country — which is in line with its declared political ideologies. And, to ensure a free and fair election process, the international community, like the UN and OIC, could have been invited to monitor and supervise the election.
In substance, this democratic overture would have been accepted and supported by most world-states, because hardly any single state could argue that Saddam was not a tyrant coupled with a megalomaniac personality. Accordingly, it would have offered an opportunity for him to leave gracefully especially as he often sought to appear as a democratically elected leader. Moreover, this overture could have created a political pressure on Saddam and those countries that were suspected of not supporting this democratic call.
To carry out that proposal, the US could have declared that it had marked Saddam’s more than forty-three palaces, and any attempt to interfere or disrupt the electoral process by his forces, would mean that the US would chase him personally and attack any palace where he might have been thought to seek sanctuary. Over the course of events, the US would have built world-support and respect for its civil and democratic efforts, and eventually the success of this plan would have solidified the US as an absolute power.
My classmate, Dr. Otto, suggested that the US should stay the course to achieve its tactical and strategic objectives. The tactical objective was to convey a message to the populations of the entire Middle East to deter them from ever contemplating an attack on it, especially as Muslims belittled US attacks on Afghanistan as being a low-value target. A vocal Palestinian journalist living in London appeared on CNN and described Afghanistan as primitive comprising worthless mud houses, but Iraq as a high-value target.
The strategic message was aimed at the entire world, and both were tied to maintain the image of the US. The war on Iraq was intended to showcase US military might, its technological advances, and to send a message that no one could attack the US and get away with it and if one dared do so, he would have to immediately pay the ultimate price.
Whether the US has achieved both its tactical and strategic objectives remain to be seen. However, evidently Iraq was neither made an oasis of democracy in the Middle East nor an example of a US state building. More importantly, the newly constructed reality of the US is opposite to that of its invaluable humanistic one.
The consequences of Boston’s bombings almost ripped off what has been left in America: Its soul. Prominent US officials (senators and congressperson) and opinion makers appeared on television prompting the denial of US citizens of their legal and civil rights. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the alleged living perpetrator of the attack, was seen as ineligible to be read his Miranda Warnings (the right to remain silent) and must be imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay detention camp. The wife of his brother, the widow Katherine Russell, was thought worthy to be put in prison for wearing hijab. The feelings of vengeance and anger do not dictate the actions of a great people; it only does so for the ordinary. The US has become like the rest of the world.
[email protected]
