- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Two decades of U.S. policy appear to be rooted in a mistaken understanding of what happened that day. archive
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m old enough to remember the 9/11 attacks. It was never in question that Saudi Arabia was complicit in what happened. The majority of the terrorists were Saudi. It took a bit longer for the fact that the Saudi government was complicit to emerge, but we knew within a short time that at the very least, they provided financial support to the terrorists.
The argument for starting the “war on terror” was that Al-Qaeda planned the attack, so we should attack the countries that harbor them. At the time, the majority of the country supported this; I remember George Bush Jr.'s approval ratings being in the 90s for a short time. Even then, most of us knew that Saudi Arabia was at least complicit in what happened. The lust for revenge, as much as it was justified, made people forget that.
Over the last 23 years, I feel like a lot of Americans have forgotten the role that Saudi Arabia played in the events of 9/11; after all, they’re our “ally,” right? I have always been on the fence regarding whether or not invading Iraq and Afghanistan was a good idea. Back in 2001, though, I felt like invading Saudi Arabia was a great idea. 23 years later, I don’t feel any different. Should the United States have attacked Iraq and Afghanistan, I’d say “probably”; should we have attacked Saudi Arabia? Absolutely. Yet it never happened.
I agree with your entire comment except the end.
We shouldn’t have attacked Iraq or Afghanistan. The premise for the war in Iraq was that Saddam was harboring weapons of mass destruction. That was a flat out lie. The Iraq war and the power vacuum it created led to the creation of ISIS.
Afghanistan had elements of Al-Qaeda present. The Taliban tolerated them. We should have hunted bin Laden there and hit Al-Qaeda where we could find them, but toppling the government was mostly useless and we ended up needing to get the hell out of there after spending $2 trillion dollars, only to have the Taliban return.
Should we have attacked Saudi Arabia though? Absolutely. We should have actually done regime change there and maybe even helped ourselves to the oil revenues to cover the costs of 9/11 and our military. Our presence would’ve also helped modernize their medieval society in ways beneficial to the Middle East.
I agree with your entire comment except the end.
I’m not sure the US has the greatest track record when it comes to those sorts of occupational wars, realistically. I think the only times we’ve ever really seen it turn out well is maybe in vietnam, where we actively just like, lost the entire war and got sent packing, and they’re still having to deal with the ongoing problem of their country being contaminated by chemical incendiary weapons that produce larger percentages of birth defects. So, even given that Saudi Arabia is kind of a theocratic monarchic shithole, I dunno if us overthrowing it would realistically do any good, you know? I dunno. I’d probably need to see more on the numbers of dissent amount the saudi population. I think probably capitalizing on a popular movement for regime change, much like the arab spring, would probably be the best route if that was possible, and it would probably have to be more grassroots than something that the US might intentionally attempt to foment in the population, I’d imagine.
In totality though I’m not really sure to what extent it’s in the US’s best interest to destabilize saudi arabia. I think the US would probably prefer predictable fascists compared to, say, if they decided to rapidly nationalize and democratize their oil supply. Another, relatively understated, good reason to move away from petroleum, I would say.
I’m not sure the US has the greatest track record when it comes to those sorts of occupational wars, realistically. I think the only times we’ve ever really seen it turn out well is maybe in vietnam, where we actively just like, lost the entire war and got sent packing, and they’re still having to deal with the ongoing problem of their country being contaminated by chemical incendiary weapons that produce larger percentages of birth defects.
Not disputing anything you said about Vietnam, but we did alright with Japan and South Korea.
I mean we did okay-ish with japan, and that was in the immediate post-ww2 period. There was a bunch of gaishas for a while that were complaining (iirc) about sexual assault from american troops, the nation immediately in the postwar period was fomented with a ton of nationalism and we didn’t really do a great job of undoing that. Though, their trajectory nowadays is pretty good, and it’s not like you can really blame all of that on the american occupation, really.
South korea, though, even though I don’t know as much, I’m pretty sure we fucked up that one, since that war basically never ended and nowadays the country is a late stage hypercapitalist hellscape where plastic surgery to make you look more western is incredibly common along with the prevalence of cults and a wealth disparity that’s pretty US-adjacent.
So I dunno if we did super well on those. Probably better than, say, Iraq, but I think our trajectory overall has been on a pretty consistent downwards trend since ww2.
Thanks for the correction
If we had only invaded Afghanistan, I could understand it. But Iraq, as I said at the time, had absolutely nothing to do with it, and it was bullshit.
People seem to forget, people even seemed to forget in 2002 and 2003, that Bush had been talking about finishing what his father started all the way back when he was running for president the first time in 1999. I kept telling people at the time.
I was in the Army then and we all knew it was Daddies War 2.0. I tried to help as many people get out of the Army as I could and then got myself out with full honors and no PTSD. Being a conscientious objector was hilariously easy because everyone knew “fuck bush and fuck the army – I aint fighting.”
We didn’t need to invade any damn whole country, we have multiple special teams that train precisely for hunting and gathering. The govt of Iraq and the poppy fields of Afghanistan needed freedom though, so we went hot after the Saudis attacked us.
Murican capitalism war hooah!
You’re not wrong, we didn’t get bin Laden until we sent one of those special teams into the territory of an"ally".
Yet we keep electing those who did that shit.
No “we” don’t. A very small minority whom have been gerrymandered to such an extreme to give the frauds who have taken over our government with their bribes the power to enact these policies.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, did not have wmd’s, and was the only major Sunni power in the region. Saddam Hussain was not a good guy by any means but he actively worked against Iranian influence and was a stabilizing presence on the middle east after the first Gulf War. Pre-invasion Iraq was good for US policy. The invasion led to the growth of Iranian influence in the region and the rise of the Islamic State terrorist organization. We should not have attacked Iraq.
I was in support of attacking Afghanistan at the time and still think military action to go after Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Ladin was warranted. The diversion of resources from that conflict is another reason we shouldn’t have attacked Iraq. We probably should have extended that conflict into northern Pakistan where we knew Al-Qaeda’s leadership and the bulk of their fighters were hiding.
We definitely should have invaded Saudi Arabia. They provided training, equipment, travel, and money to enable the 9/11 attacks. 9/11 would not have been possible without Saudi Arabia’s support. Saudi Arabia was(is) in the curious position of publicly allying with us while plotting terrorism against us. Curious because by siding with us publicly they gave up Iran’s advantage of attacks against them potentially leading to conflict with Russia. Iran had some part in 9/11 but between their having a lesser role and the risk of Russia coming to their defense it would not have been worth it to attack Iran. Saudi Arabia had our backing instead of Russia’s. When they used proxies to attack us we should have leveled their royal palace. So far we haven’t even pulled our support.
Saddam was a CIA project that had gone rouge.
I haven’t forgotten that George H.W. Bush (the President’s father) was literally in a meeting with a member of the bin Laden family when the attacks occurred. The Bush and the bin Laden families were highly entangled in oil business dealings. I remember, too, that the only airplanes allowed to fly in U.S. airspace in the days after 9/11—all other traffic everywhere being grounded, stranding Americans far from home—were the flights taking members of the bin Laden family out of the United States, and back to Saudi Arabia.
I wonder why that attack on Saudi Arabia never happened?
I haven’t forgotten that George H.W. Bush (the President’s father) was literally in a meeting with a member of the bin Laden family when the attacks occurred.
Got a source for that?
Best I can find/remember, it is a distortion of this passage from Dan Briody’s book The Iron Triangle, or at the very least it is an unproven claim.
A Chance Meeting
That same morning, in the plush setting of the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Washington, DC, the Carlyle Group was holding its annual international investor conference. Frank Carlucci, James Baker III, David Rubenstein, William Conway, and Dan D’Aniello were together, along with a host of former world leaders, former defense experts, wealthy Arabs from the Middle East, and major international investors as the terror played out on television. There with them, looking after the investments of his family was Shafiq bin Laden, Osama bin Laden’s estranged half-brother. George Bush Sr. was also at the conference, but Carlyle’s spokesperson says the former president left before the terror attacks, and was on an airplane over the Midwest when flights across the country were grounded on the morning of September 11. In any circumstance, a confluence of such politically complex and globally connected people would have been curious, even newsworthy. But in the context of the terrorist attacks being waged against the United States by a group of Saudi nationals led by Osama bin Laden, the group assembled at the Ritz-Carlton that day was a disconcerting and freakish coincidence.
I do not, so I’ll take that back. It was widely discussed at the time, so I remembered it as Bush being there when the attack occurred, not that he left shortly before. I will say that I think it’s close enough for the point to stand that the Bush and bin Laden families had business interests in common, and had had personal dealings prior.
Thanks for the correction.
deleted by creator
For the US to invade Saudi Arabia, where Mecca and Medina are located, would have turned the entire Muslim world against it for generations. It would have been Afghanistan+Iraq times a hundred.
Don’t you love how Saudi Arabia, the country who was very obviously behind 9/11, hasn’t suffered a single negative consequence as a result of their actions? They literally got away with 9/11. And then the US invaded some unrelated countries. Mind blowing.
When you don’t normalize it, it really is mind blowing. Bush should be in Prison
Bush II even sent special flights around the US (during the no-fly period) to gather up Saudi citizens and transport them safely home. Imagine Roosevelt doing this for Japanese citizens on December 8th 1941.
Remember kids: Iran is the bad Middle East autocracy and Saudi Arabia is the good Middle East autocracy.
US foreign policy has always been and will always be interest based rather than value based, but they will use moral arguments and threat inflation to drum up support for their misadventures abroad.
Removed by mod
Or… one is bad and the other one is way worse.
The thing that always amuses me about this is that Iran was a burgeoning liberal democracy until the CIA and MI6 toppled it in 1953, installing a previously overthrown autocrat (overthrown by said forces of democracy), who ruled until 1979, when he was overthrown by religious hard liners, who really only had mass support because the autocrat was too authoritarian.
And the reason the U.S. and Britain overthrew their democracy? They nationalized their oil industry to give profits back to their people, which entailed taking over refineries and wells ‘owned’ by British Petroleum.
The U.S. created their own boogeyman in the area because they wanted to give a corporation near-free access to Iran’s oil. Which in turn lead to the oil crisis and instability in the region.
The U.S. has really got to stop trying to put out fires while covered in crude oil.Removed by mod
Which one is the way worse one? Because I can’t really think of a way in which one is way worse than the other. I wouldn’t ever want to live in either place if I were a woman or a queer person.
Removed by mod
Well then you would be wrong.
Iran never let anything like this happen- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Mecca_girls'_school_fire
So unless you think a country that lets girls burn to death rather than go out in the street uncovered is superior to a country that doesn’t…
But please do tell me the ways that Iran does things in terms of human rights that significantly differ from the ways that Saudi Arabia does things.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
100% agree, no longer being oil dependent would make the middle east a saver place (as well as having many other advantages).
But even the green revolution needs cheap labor, recourses, and rare-earth metals. Countries that do not want to play game and want to nationalize key industries for instance, will be coerced financially or militarily by greater powers (be it the West, China, or Russia).
So the idea of one country being worse than the other is not really relevant and moreover a known strategy for getting war support. I am happy that I don’t live in Iran or Saudi Arabia, but escalating conflict with either of them will not improve anybody’s life. Look at Syria or Libya.
iran is pretty regressive (at least the government and the governing bodies) but i do love how the us always says iran is so evil and yet they gave them a whole bunch of weapons in exchange for money that the us could use to fund terrorists in central america in the 80s.
deleted by creator
Are you referring to the $2 billion U.S. dollars that Saudi Arabia gave to Jared Kushner as an “investment” in his consulting company that has never made a profit for anyone before? The $2 billion Saudi Arabia apparently gave Jared Kushner as a gift that may be related to the extremely valuable government secrets illegally stolen by his father-in-law Donald Trump? That $2 billion?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
was that evidence called “literally what everyone has known for the last 25 years”?
Obligatory Kitty History
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
see also: global politics in 30 seconds
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I love The Atlantic but “Two decades of U.S. policy appear to be rooted in a mistaken understanding of what happened that day”? I’m not sure I buy that. Maybe the Saudi complicity is deeper than we originally realized but I don’t think anybody is really shocked by these recent revelations. US policy has driven by political agendas or, sadly, certain VP’s business interests
Removed by mod
One could argue that the Florida Supreme Court is responsible for millions of Iraqi/Afghan deaths and untold damage to democracy and the climate by forcing that election the way people didn’t vote. W should have been a baseball manager, he was, as the Rs do, completely unqualified against an actual experienced person at the job but had the quips and genealogy.
Florida, republicans, consistently making everyone’s life worse. WHY DO PEOPLE STILL VOTE FOR THEM
Hesitant, forlorn and very much hopefully misplaced resigned upvote.
I want to dismiss your assertions out of hand as too pessimistic and cynical but…yeah, we let them win at least the battle if not the whole shebang.
My hope stems from kids today generally being kinder, open minded and not “tolerant” but actually coexisting with nary a thought. Better people will make a better world if we give them the chance to before fucking up beyond repair.
Removed by mod
Propaganda was fed to the mainstream at record levels.
It was done to fool the public into a war and reconstruction effort that fleeced America, destroyed countries, and killed a shitload.
A few got rich. A few jumped up a few spots on the power scale.
And Russia has taken over the role of primary sponsor of the Republican party from Saudi.
I, like most of the millenial lemmings it seems, am not shocked about this. I remember what Dubya said as president, the daily evils. I would have never thought it could get worse and then we got Trump, and I think it all does echoes out from 9/11. If there are future historians, 9/11 is going to be the pivot that this entire century stumbles over, probably leading directly to WW3 any day now.
But when I see articles like this, (in the Atlantic ofc, always this one or the NYT) my nostrils fill up with the smell of consent being manufactured. Has the shadow council decided that we shall war with the Saudis now? With Russia and China just flat-out taking land now, has the US decided to extend it’s “protection” more directly over a few strategic areas?
Israel is about to be made an example of. This is BiBi airing dirty laundry on his way out.
BDS ISRAEL -it’s the only way
Isn’t BDS a Korean pop band? I don’t think that’s enough of a punishment for genocide…
That’s BTS.
Whoops. So what’s BDS?
Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) is a Palestinian-led movement for freedom, justice and equality. BDS upholds the simple principle that Palestinians are entitled to the same rights as the rest of humanity.
Thanks. That sounds appropriate.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
The person you’re talking to also implied the US are bad guys for initiating three decades of war.
9/11 is going to be the pivot that this entire century stumbles over
November 2000 was a bigger pivot - when Bush and the Republican Supreme Court simply took the Presidency.
the costly policies that the United States has pursued for the past quarter century have been rooted in a false premise.
No shit
So we should invade Iran?
Red tailed hawk screeching intensifies
Tl;dr: A new filing in a lawsuit brought by the families of 9/11 victims against the government of Saudi Arabia alleges that al-Qaeda had significant, indeed decisive, state support for its attacks. Officials of the Saudi government, the plaintiffs’ attorneys contend, formed and operated a network inside the United States that provided crucial assistance to the first cohort of 9/11 hijackers to enter the country.
You mean the only people that were allowed to fly when all other air traffic was shut down?
Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and North Korea are the Mount Rushmore of asshole governments.
where does america fall here? Or do they have their own mountain?
I’m definitely furrowing my eyebrows at you. You’re not wrong, and I’m mad about that.
This isn’t new. Also, this is a false narrative that the invasion of Iraq was ever about retribution for 9/11.
It was started because the Dubya administration insisted that Iraq had WMDs and implied that Saddam was planning on using them relatively soon
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Yes, the WMDs was the public reason.
WMDs was one of the excuses for invading Iraq. Another was that they hosted Al Qaeda people in the country. The administration started claiming Saddam Hussein was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks within a couple of days. Here’s just one article I found from a quick search: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/9-11-and-iraq-the-making-of-a-tragedy/
Not my claim that it’s new, I copy pasted the article
So did they want to raise the price and we said no so then they asked us to start a fake war against one of their competitors? Is that what actually happened?
A blue-ribbon commission concluded that Osama bin Laden had pioneered a new kind of terrorist group—combining superior technological know-how, extensive resources, and a worldwide network so well coordinated that it could carry out operations of unprecedented magnitude
Caves in Afghanistan…
Honestly, the conspiracy theories for 9/11 were a thousand times more believable than this “expansive terrorist network” that somehow lacked influence outside of perhaps the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Seeing this sponsored by a US ally makes a lot of sense to me.
