Who Won?: The Attacks, 2 Years Later

[MORTARDUDE]

Who Won?: The Attacks, 2 Years Later

By ELISABETH BUMILLER


ASHINGTON ? The physical fallout from the Sept. 11 attacks is as obvious as a low-flying plane in a bright blue sky. A new $38 billion cabinet department with the chilling name Homeland Security has risen out of an old naval facility in the quiet residential northwest quadrant of the capital, headquarters for an army of 170,000 employees. A jury sifts through thousands of designs for a memorial over the mass grave in Lower Manhattan, schools stash emergency water and food, people wear better socks when they fly on commercial flights ? and real American armies are in Afghanistan and Iraq.



There are just as many other signs that the country has moved on. The American flags that sprouted in the nation's front yards have faded, New York's sidewalk cafes are full and President Bush long ago returned as the butt of jokes on late-night television.

Even Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the Connecticut Democrat and presidential candidate who pushed for the Department of Homeland Security, has been struck by the nation's seeming collective amnesia. "As I campaign," he said, "I talk about homeland security, but very few questions are asked about it. People are more interested in jobs and health care and education."

And yet, conversations with American writers, academics, politicians and scientists on the eve of the second anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks turned up barely healed scars, part of the "new normalcy," as Tom Ridge, the homeland security secretary, put it in a speech last week. Like the worst kind of personal tragedy ? the death of a loved one, a divorce, a devastating financial failure ? the Sept. 11 attacks are hardly forgotten, and never will be to any American alive that day. Rather, they have become a part of who we are, absorbed into individual lives and the nation's collective psyche in ways both subtle and jarring.

Todd Gitlin, a professor of sociology and journalism at Columbia University, said that he sometimes looks out his apartment window at the Hudson River and rather than seeing one of the nation's most historic waterways instead thinks that he is gazing on a "geographical pointer" for hijackers. "Does that mean I fly less than I used to?" Mr. Gitlin asked. "Absolutely not. But my psyche is more troubled, no question about it."

Steven Brill, the author of "After: How America Confronted the September 12 Era," said that he now sometimes startles when he hears a truck backfire. "I can't help but think, `Is that something else?' " Mr. Brill said. "I think in our own heads we're all sort of back to normal, except for the fact that we're all looking over our shoulders."

Because of his research, Mr. Brill said he is more aware of the terrorist threat, and worries about places he feels are not adequately protected. "I'm not a crazy person, but when I think there's some danger, when we're on high alert, I don't let my son take the subway," he said. "I know what some of the vulnerabilities are."

Such personal fears have become part of the public debate, particularly in architecture, where the American ideal of open space competes with a need for security. Michael Maltzen, the architect who designed the Museum of Modern Art's temporary center in Queens, is now working on a large public park in Los Angeles, where a conflict has arisen, he said, "between one group that feels a park should be secure and you should close that space off, and another that feels that space represents the possibility of a public life."

In his own life, he has decided that the one public space he will avoid is Disneyland, fearing it as a spectacular target for terrorists, though he does use the New York City subways. "It doesn't make sense," Mr. Maltzen admitted. "It's not based in any kind of statistical logic. It's a question of where your thresholds are."

Does this mean, then, that the terrorists have won in that they have changed American life? Mr. Gitlin said probably, but Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, said no. "I think what Al Qaeda means by winning is the destruction of our way of life," Mr. Gingrich said. "They have gotten our attention, they have forced us to change at the margins our way of life and they have ensured that for 60 percent of American people defeating terrorism is a high priority." People still go about their daily routines, he said, "for the same reason that people who see car wrecks keep driving."

In contrast to World War II, when rationing and a new female labor force created a social revolution, the bigger change this time may be internal. "What's changed for many people is what's in our heads about America's position in the world, rather than the reality of daily life," said the historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, whose son, Lt. Joseph K. Goodwin, is with the First Armored Division in Baghdad.

For Ms. Goodwin, a war that is a television abstraction to most of the country is deeply personal, and represents the first time she has been absorbed in military affairs beyond her research into the wars of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln. "You read the paper every day with a different feeling," she said. "Every time you see the name of somebody who has died over there, it's a great pull on your heart."

As a historian, Ms. Goodwin added, she knew intellectually that the giddy times of the 1990's couldn't last, and that history had cycles. "But still, during that period between the end of the cold war and Sept. 11, in my heart I believed that maybe things would be different for a while, and that maybe for this next generation, things could remain peaceful," she said. "But that has been shattered."

Others have absorbed Sept. 11 as a personal attack, like a virus that invaded the body of America. Wendy Steiner, the Richard L. Fisher professor of English at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of "The Scandal of Pleasure: Art in an Age of Fundamentalism," reacted to the attacks in the context of an illness, breast cancer, which she had before moving to New York just before the Sept. 11 attacks. "It reinforced this new sense for me that everything is transitional and iffy in life, and the security I had as a young person is pretty much shot," she said. "That was also the way American life was, kind of childish and not concerned with tragedy, and it changed."

Even as many spoke of the inevitability of another attack, others said some of the biggest changes in American life had been a sense of pulling together around a common hearth for comfort. Alice Waters, the creator of the restaurant Chez Panisse and perhaps the nation's most influential chef, said that her patrons were more American than they had ever been. "I think people aren't traveling to Europe," she said "and I think people from other countries aren't traveling here." She added that the San Francisco farmers' market was thriving because people were cooking and staying at home.

Anthony S. Fauci, a leading infectious disease expert at the National Institutes of Health who has been in charge of the federal government's biodefense research since the Sept. 11 attacks, said that there was a new "spirit and toughness and camaraderie" in his work, and that he had never before been driven by such urgency. "I don't want to seem like I'm some macho hero, because I'm not at all, but I don't have time to get spooked," he said. "After Sept. 11, everything turned into a very cold resolve to get the job done."

And Roger W. Wilkins, a professor of history and American culture at George Mason University who has lived near Capitol Hill for more than two decades, said he had developed a new appreciation for the United States Capitol building, which was believed to have been one of the targets in the Sept. 11 attacks.

"All of a sudden, when the idea of that building being destroyed was in my mind, I began to really look at it and see it," Mr. Wilkins said. "I see it from all different vantage points, and at all different times of day." Now, he added, "it has taken on this enormous place in my psyche, and I never go anyplace when I'm in sightline of the Capitol without looking at it and appreciating its beauty."

[BLUEHAWK]

Nice work Larry, excellent piece.

I believe that Al Qaeda and their bretheren would be content if the US and our allies would simply leave the middle east, and Israel would do what it needs to do for there to be peace in Palestine.

I do not agree with Mr. Gingrich, or anyone else, that it is the Terrorist's intention to dsetroy our way of life. Nor do I think they have much chance of doing so, unless we continue playing directly into their hands.

Americans are a resilient and resourceful breed, measuring up to virtually all challenges and difficulties with plenty in reserve so far. Some of us believe that in this present case, going quite a ways back with administrations (as was true also of events in the decades leading up to Vietnam), we are now facing a problem, somewhat of our own making, about which it is uncertain that the result will be as advertised. Unlike Vietnam, except for the putative attempt to halt communism (which failed there), this war has been declared to have no foreseeable end, against an international guerrilla foe, and to be global... which I take to mean WW III.

[Seascamp]

Well Blue,

I think Al Qaeda and their secret blood brothers, Al Whabbi, have every intention of destroying western culture. Every Friday the Saudi Whabbi Mullahs scream from the pulpit about destroying the insects, monkeys and pigs (meaning us), on and on. But they know they can?t pull it off. On the practical side of things, they have to have some focal point for droves of thousands of unemployed and restless young men. So the best thing to do to avoid a civil war is to export war I reckon.

And Al Qaeda did in fact wipe out an entire settlement of Indonesian Christians and grabbed the land for them selves. I believe it was an entire island they grabbed. So they are on the board as mass exterminators of non-Moslems when they can get away with it. And that?s the rub I suppose because as time presses forth, every time they pop their head up, they will most likely get it blown off. But I?m not worried about running out of Islamic terrorists any time soon. There are some 15,000 Madrassah seminaries in Pakistan with a student population of around 1.5 million at any given time. And a big chunk of the curriculum focuses on what a righteous fellow Osama bin Laden is and the need to go join his Jihad.

Scamp

[BLUEHAWK]

Scamp -
I realize that that is what they SAY and TEACH, over and over again. Here in America it is said and taught over and over again several things about our Civil War which are not remotely true either. I have not noticed that the truth has been much affected, but people certainly have. Question then is (in my small brain), "Is what is being predicted actually possible?". I think not. So, now what.

Under the direction of the current honcho of Israel, Mr. Sharon, the genocide at Sabra and Shatilla in Lebanon was allowed to occur as well... lest we forget. Did not this current spate of violence begin anew on the occasion of that same Mr. Sharon arrogantly violating an accepted taboo by going to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem? Those folks have a legitimate beef with somebody, and since "we" have been doing what "we" have been doing the way "we" have been doing it, they believe that they might just as well attack us too. This is not as surprising or shocking to me, perhaps, as it appears to be to many others. In fact, I submit that we would do the very same thing... only sooner and with far greater devastation.

I understand clearly, extremely clearly, that this is a mighty testy deal right now, and in no way would I in the least bit dispute anything you have shown in your post... not one thing.

I can perceive the predictions BECOMING possible, however, if America and allies continue playing directly into their hands. I have said it before on some of these pages, but will say it again here... it is their intention to kill us with "Death by a Thousand Cuts", and to bleed us at our most vulnerable point...i.e. an obsessively capitalist economy. They saw what happened in Vietnam. They know we will not fall for that strategy another time. So, they are doing the only thing that is available to them... global guerrilla warfare, preying on american stubborness about Israel and on our tendency to overreact by squandering resources. We must not allow them to do that Scamp.

Should we give up on Israel? Never. But must we continue to fight that battle in such a way as has been proven for 5 decades to be unworkable? I think not.

Case in point: If Iran must reveal ALL it's nuclear capabilities, then shouldn't Israel do likewise? See what I mean? That might be a start.

I am, dare I say, not especially worried about Al Qaeda or the Wahabbi threat to destroy western culture. They have been forced to resort to their tactics primarly BECAUSE history has shown that although "white men can't jump", we and this melting pot bizarre culture will definitely kick your freakin' ass in triplicate and spread the remains in outer space if you should mess with us too much... which they decidely have done. They don't wanna get the Swedes pissed off, centuries ago they almost took over the formative Russian empire.

We gotta stop cleanin' up after the mess the Brits left in the middle east, they know this... we seem to be the only ones who never mention it, and the Brits will ride our donkey till it drops. We're about to be had Scamp, that's my opinion.

I, for one, ain't gonna let 'em, none of 'em.

So the idea would be, let us not inadvertently CREATE MORE Islamic terrorists. This is one thing "our" foreign policy is accomplishing, right along, daily, thanks to American Enterprise Institute and Project for The New American Century.

This is rambling a bit far afield I realize, but allow me please to offer an analogy: (just amateur historiography)

My conclusion about the Cold War is that the Red's major error was in their stubborn aetheism. Had it not been for that, I doubt we'd have been as ferocious about their defeat. Still, "after" the Cold War, significant communist nations and movements continue to exist. But today they are not perceived (e.g.McCarthy)as being nearly the threat they once were. Why. Because we are fairly much confident in our way of life and in our ability to protect it at home.

Suggested books:

"Black Shirts and Reds", by: Michael Parenti (Brace oneself, it's very hard to wrap the american mind around at first, practically traumatic in fact).

"The Fateful Triangle", by: Noam Chomsky (I know, everybody thinks he's too weird for primetime).

Lastly, before I get myself in way too deep here, I have serious lingering questions about assigning all that responsibility to Al Qaeda or who the freak ever else someone can name over there. Here is why:

> The blame has got to be based on intel. Intel is interpreted to peons like me by propaganda in the form of "spin", "parsing", "sound bites" and "leaks".

- The address of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was not sufficiently known or conveyed to our fliers to prevent the bombing deaths of their citizens some years back. Oops.
- If I recall correctly, a civilian Iranian airliner was shot down in the Persian Gulf years ago on faulty intel. Oops.
- We have yet to find, or receive an adequate report on, WMD in Iraq. Oops?
- One need not list any more of such facts, and the intelligence industry/community/profession is probably being scapegoated for things they did their best to prevent. Hell, I'm an american... I gotta believe that our own people are doing everything they possibly can to safeguard the homeland. If that ain't so, then the whole ball of wax is up for grabs.

My point is this, the examples of intel not EVER being sufficient and in time are countless, no matter how sophisticated American technology has become. I am NOT making excuses for a murderous Al Qaeda (et al). All I know for sure is that we were hit, and hit hard, by somebody. We are trying to fight our way out of it.

Thoughts of a patriot, a tired and rather old person at the moment... respectfully submitted to one of his elders who probably knows far better than he.

[Seascamp]

Thanks for the insightful comments. I think we are pointed in the same direction but perhaps I?m a bit more pragmatic about grabbing rabid weasels by the tail and smacking their heads against the rocks. You seem to be thinking in terms of ?OK, what now? and that?s good as someone had better be thinking along those lines. Compatable thoughts for sure and I totally agree with our need to avoid playing the game the terrorist way, that won?t work. My VN war experience taught me to simplify, simplify, simplify then go kick ass. Given this, I look at the Islamic terrorist situation I recognize that the vast majority of the Islamic world is no threat to the western world at all. I also recognize the 10th century biased Islamic fundamentalists are a total threat and have some vision of inflaming the Moslem world to rise up against the western world. And of course, name Osama or some one like him as the first Caliph in centuries. It?s so far so bad for the Islamic fundamentalists, as it doesn?t appear that a worldwide Islamic uprising is going to play out, not yet anyway. But in forward thinking terms, we have to be sure that we and everyone else knows where the line in the sand is and that we are no threat to the Islamic world. It terms of this non-threatening posture, we have done a piss-poor job of promoting our intentions for decades and left the door wide open for the Islamic charlatans to get their digs in.

My pragmatic self totally dismisses any notion that these various and assorted Islamic terrorist organizations have any altruistic notions beyond self-perpetuation. During my last trip through Beirut, I did see the Hezbollah headquarters and that was very revealing. A modern multi-story office building with adjoining TV studio, etc., and all the antenna systems on the roof spoke volumes about the happenings there. And sure, they are into the ?rent a suicidal fanatic? business and a few fanatics have gone into self-detonation in South America, etc. Al Qaeda may be a different animal in that they target the west and different in that they have difficulties recruiting real educated field talent but that doesn?t make them any less dangerous or less dedicated to self-perpetuation through the role of destroying the west. My thoughts suggest that the field of Israeli-hating organizations is saturated and new comers like Al Qaeda are probably not so welcome in that particular venue as the competition for donation/support Denars is real keen. And I also notice that all of these organizations pick enemies they have no hope of beating but at the same time retain sanctuaries where they have a hope of perpetuation. For certain, Al Qaeda miscalculated the fate of Afghanistan and the Taliban once the US got on the revenging eagle romp and Osama has lost a lot of credibility. We?ll have to see how that bacterium gets going again and where the sanctuary ends up.

So anyway Bro. Blue, we see the topic through a different set of glasses but are both looking in the same direction, at the same thing as peers and that works for me. I?ll check out the books you mentioned, as they sound interesting.

Scamp

[BLUEHAWK]

Thanks Scamp -
It's nice, for once, to not get my head ripped clean off before noon of a day...

It simply seems, to me, that there is a whole lot of unwarranted certainty that we are for sure on the right track, the outcome is inevitable and the war will be endlessly global... so I am slightly more skeptical that we (like our British opponents a couple hundred years ago) will be able to kick the ass that is needing to be kicked... just caution on my part; brought about by experiences during VN.

Heaven knows we have the firepower, the troops and the will. I tend to deal more with the intangible unintended consequence area, for all the good it does.

I appreciate the way you put those recent thoughts, very helpful.