Posted By David Rothkopf Share

As this week's commemorations of the attacks that took place on Sept. 11, 2001 continue, it is appropriate that the country pause to remember those who were lost and injured in the attacks and our response to them as well as those who distinguished themselves seeking to protect America and the values we hold dear.

The wounds of that day and the scars they have left on our society are such that they are certain to be felt by most of us who were alive that day for the rest of our lives.

That said, it does not diminish -- indeed, it enhances -- those moments of remembrance if we take the time to acknowledge and consider those who have been the innocent victims of America's grotesque, unjustifiable overreaction to those attacks. 

The numbers vary, but it is certain that well over 100,000 and perhaps as many as a million innocent Iraqis, Afghans, and Pakistanis have been killed as a result of America's efforts to seek revenge for our losses. That means, even the lowest estimates of collateral damage associated with our invasion of Iraq alone from groups like the Associated Press, the Iraq Family Health Survey, or the Iraq Body Count Project, suggest that between 30 and 50 times as many Iraqis died as a result of our invasion as died in 9/11 attacks -- which, of course, had no relationship whatsoever to the country in which they lived. Higher estimates, like those of the Lancet or the Opinion Research Business Survey, suggest totals 200 to 300 times higher. In Afghanistan too, civilians paid for our military intervention with their lives in multiples of our 9/11 losses.

These losses too involved mothers, fathers, and their children, bereavement and holes in the fabric of civilization that can never be mended. To ignore them is to recommit the crimes that led to both their deaths and those of the thousands who were lost in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon or in that field in Pennsylvania; it amounts once again to the valuing of the lives of those we know, those close to us, at a premium to those who are physically or culturally distant from us.

What happened that clear blue morning in early September a decade ago here in the United States was a ghastly example of the cost not just of misdirected fury but also of the disregard of the value of life, law and morality. So too were the losses that have come since.

To suggest that the tragedies of 9/11 took place exclusively on that day or that the victims worth mourning were exclusively Americans or our friends and allies is to misunderstand the nature not just of those tragedies but of tragedy in general. If we wish to mark those losses closest to us in a way that will reduce the likelihood of future such catastrophes or better, that will increase the likelihood of human progress away from such needless bloodletting, then we ought to spend time reflecting on the fate of those foreign, faceless others who died in the conflagrations that were ignited that day as well as on our own individual roles, however small, in promoting, rationalizing or ignoring America's own crimes.

For the past ten years, our most visible commemoration of 9/11 has been the ways we sought vengeance, visiting death upon innocents purely based upon the pretext that our own suffering had been great. While we are pulling away and even repudiating the policies that were linked to our own misdeeds we should try to remember that calling one thing a policy and another a terrorist plot is an insufficient distinction to the dead.

A great tragedy took place on 9/11. It was compounded many times over in the decade since. Acknowledge both facts or invite the accusation that we have learned little or that we are no better than the enemies we condemn. 

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

EXPLORE:THUMBS
 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

ZATHRAS

2:47 PM ET

September 7, 2011

Just for fun....

....I wonder if David Rothkopf would care to post an essay about his individual role in promoting, rationalizing or ignoring America's own crimes.

It might actually have been seemly of him to do that before going on about what "we" are responsible for or what has motivated "us" for the last ten years. I would agree, on balance, that reflection is a rather good thing, but since Rothkopf brought the subject up, perhaps he should set an example.

 

KODI

7:20 PM ET

September 7, 2011

"We?"

“We” are solely or primarily responsible for all of those deaths? Does “we” include Shia death squads, al-Quaeda in Iraq, ISI-sponsored terror groups, the Taliban or indiscriminate bomber-jihadists of all stripes? Most of those deaths were Muslim on Muslim violence, not U.S./coalition military action. Did we set the stage for much of it? Sure.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him murder his own countrymen. We did not kill 100,000 - 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis, Afghans, and Pakistanis. But by being present during local power struggles, civil war, religious/ethnic cleansings we get all of the blame? I respectfully disagree.

 

NICOLAS19

2:44 PM ET

September 8, 2011

yes, you

The US is solely responsible for invading Iraq and Afghanistan. This idiocy of yours - "we are not responsible for the bloodshed, we just happened to be there when they committed mass suicide" - is the worst excuse so far.

I honestly doubt that it was the mighty Afghan Air Force that bombed their own country's infrastructure and irrigation system to smithereens, killing thousands by direct bombing and other hundreds of thousands by famine and displacement.

As for those killed during clashes, a violent crime is always the failure of the security establishment. By destroying the Afghan and Iraqi security forces and maintaining an occupation without providing an alternative, you are directly responsible for all violent deaths that occurred in the country.

Remember the millions of Ukrainians who died of famine during the Soviet occupation? It was the direct responsibility of the occupiers, there is no excuse for just sitting and watching your subjects die. Same applies for the US, albeit on a lower scale. You want to occupy and loot a country, fine. But you have to take responsibility for all who died under your watch.

 

SSZROM

8:25 PM ET

September 7, 2011

Responsibility

American soldiers, sailors, or airmen (or drones, or cruise missiles, etc. etc.) had no direct role in the massive majority of those deaths. Do not misallocate responsibility and move the moral burden from the Taliban, Sadrists, and others to the Americans simply because the Americans might actually give a damn about that moral burden.

America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been conducted (on the coalition's side) in the most humane manner and with the utmost regard for human life, moreso than any other real, kinetic war in history. Did they lead to this chain of events? In some way, but Americans did not make the choices that ultimately led to these deaths.

 

NICOLAS19

2:50 PM ET

September 8, 2011

of course

Waterboarding, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib... yeah, humane manner indeed. If the US cared about the moral burden, they should not have stared the wars.

"We killed thousands of people.... but very gently!"

 

KUNINO

11:43 PM ET

September 7, 2011

Possibly the greatest single tragedy of the day

This was the virtually universal use on 9/11 by professional journalists and famed talking heads that the crime was "unbelievable". Freedom-loving Thomas Friedman was the lone standout of the day, which he spent driving around in his (German-made) car, fiercely singing the battle hymn of the republic, but for just about everybody else in the news game, unbelievable was the single rock to cling to. Too many Americans fell into line about that.

How fortunate that the NYC emergency workers responded more realistically.

9/11 wasn't even the first explosive attack on the World Trade Center by an Arab holy man. It followed by years sundry murderous al-Qaeda attacks on Americans abroad, particularly American government institutions -- on land and afloat. The US Senate was tipped off to the risk in May 1998, the CIA tipped off Condoleezza Rice some days beforehand that something exactly like this was imminent. She didn't pass on the tip to the president, and later swore on oath in evidence to the Senate that she'd never received that advice. (The Senators then saw her admit her falsehood, and, dominated by the then-president's party, consented to her appointment as secretary of state. On 9/11, she now boasts, she'd been telling the US president by phone to stay out of Washington, and effectively leave the nation to Mr Cheney's leadership. Mr Bush found himself more or less at a loose end well away from the nation's capital, attended doubtless by a military officer bearing the nukular war codes.)

The FBI, whose job it was to protect the republic from such atrocities amd had been active in hunting al-Qaeda for three years, was mightily pissed off by the senior agent who kept irritating the management by warning of 9/11 possibilities. He finally quit -- pre-9/11. The FBI for weeks before the big day had been ignoring tips from flying schools that they were offering Boeing flight lessons to Arabs with dangerously eccentric idea of what it takes to fly an airliner.

In the White House, minutes after the WTC attack there were wiseheads telling the then anti-terror chief -- wrongly -- that the attack had been Iraqi. Also on 9/11, the defense department couldn't put a single plane in the sky that could shoot down any aircraft controlled by terrorists. The few pilots hunting for such airlines had figured out that their only weapon against them was ramming. (Eighteen years earlier, the terror bomber who blew up the Marine barracks in Beirut had driven his truck right past the military sentry who, as ordered, was bearing a weapon with no ammunition. Inshallah, the bomber must have thought in the last few seconds of his life.)

The British leader Winston Churchill in 1938 wrote a book about how Britain had been unable to discourage the military buildup of Hitler's Germany, and titled it "While England Slept". A bright young Harvard student parsed that into a thesis titled "Why England Slept", which argued that the British were so under-armed in the late 1930s that in reality, there wasn't much they could have done to to slow or stop Hitler. World War II resulted, but nobody described it as unbelievable. .

In the late 1990s and into the new millennium, the US was by far the most strongly-armed nation in the world, and had a fabulously expensive security environment, all committed to protecting the republic from its enemies foreign and domestic. A ragtag group of foreigners with an estimated budget of $300,000 bypassed them all. Can anybody tell me which military and security leaders lost their jobs over this? How many of their jobs were saved by the partial concealment of the findings of the 9/11 Commission?

9/11 wasn't unbelievable. Clinging to that mistaken word sent the US headlong into a lunatic ride of many unintended consequences. For the first several years, its desired consequence was achieved: the American people were frightened, time and time again. And what do frightened people do? Often, overreact. Ten years later, the citizens are still frightened -- most recently by a troubled young foreigner with explosive underpants. And the lavish defense and security expenditures in the past ten years now seem to be having such unforeseen effects as robbing many of the current generation of American children of their right to a complete education. Tough on young Americans, a victory for the nation's foes.

 

AMACD

1:24 PM ET

September 9, 2011

9/11 and the 21st century's disguised global Empire

Exactly ten years after the Reichstag fire (Feb 1933) the Nazi Empire had reached its downward turning point in losing the Battle of Stalingrad (Feb 1943), but after ten years of the Nazi Empire's wars, economic looting, spying, and lying most Germans were smart enough to correctly sense that this wannabe global Nazi Empire, which had taken over their democratic Republic country, was leading to an inexorable suicidal collapse.

Exactly ten years after 9/11 the disguised global corporate/financial/militarist Empire that has taken over our former country by hiding behind the facade of its bought and owned TWO-Party modernized ‘Vichy’ sham of faux-democratic government has so far dodged its Stalingrad downfall, and continues to be successful in fooling all the people all the time, expanding its Empire with the “Pentagon’s New Map”, and will only likely collapse when its PR lie of “Globalization” is recognized for what it really is—- disguised ‘global Empire’.

Since 9/11 it is commonly said that, “everything has changed”.

Yes, “We are all rubes of Empire now”!

There remains no substantial recognition that our former country (and others like U.K. Israel et al) has been captured by a disguised global corporate/financial/militarist EMPIRE, which hides behind the facade of its TWO-Party modernized “Vichy” sham of faux-democratic government——just as the occupying Nazi Empire hid behind its far cruder single-party “Vichy” regime.

‘Globalization’ is simply the branded and polite marketing term for global EMPIRE!

This disguised global empire is the causal cancerous tumor that creates all ‘symptom problems’ like wars, economic oppression, massive inequality, environmental destruction, and all other ‘issues’ that are used to divide and distract resistance from attacking the core of the Empire ITSELF.

“Nobody does it better”——lying about the Empire——certainly not the Nazis, nor the Soviets:

Obama’s speech immediately reminded me of the old James Bond “Spy Who Loved Me” song, “Nobody Does It Better” — in that nobody does disguised global Empire better than the US and its new “Open Globalization” pitch-man.

Yes, Obama is a wonderful spokesman (better than even Ronald Reagan or Thomas Friedman) in promoting the appearance of a promising “Globalization” and looking forward to democracy for all, while glossing over the fact that the forced march to globalization by force of arms is essentially just a cover for the reality of “global Empire”.

The PR skills of the corporatist media and Obama are the only combination that can promise the advertising illusion of such ‘hope for change’ under the implied mantel of “democracy” and free market economic “Globalization”, and yet deliver the reality of deceptive, disguised, dysfunctional, and unsustainable “Global Empire” — Nobody does it better.

As Nobel economist George Akerlof more presciently diagnosed as far back as 2001, “This is not normal government economic policy, but a form of LOOTING”.

Who will tell Americans the truth; that 9/11 was a perfectly orchestrated event to divert the growing attention on ‘American Empire’, to engender patriotic sympathy with American victim-hood, and to thus cover-up the real 21st century post-nation-state global corporate/financial/militarist Empire which has taken over our former country by hiding behind the facade of its modernized TWO-Party ‘Vichy’ sham of faux democratic government—- similarly to the patriotic sympathy engendered by the Reichstag fire and the subsequent ploy of installing a crude single-party ‘Vichy’ government in Europe to cover-up the spread of the global strategy of the fascist/corporatist Nazi Empire.

Empire and not the American government is the real enemy of people everywhere!

Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine

Liberty & democracy
over
violent
empire

New America Peoples’ Party 2012—- our last chance “Against Empire”

 

TERENCE

5:16 AM ET

October 5, 2011

9/11 wasn't even the first

9/11 wasn't even the first explosive attack on the World Trade Center by an Arab holy man. It followed by years sundry murderous al-Qaeda attacks on Americans abroad, particularly American government institutions -- on land and afloat. The US Senate was tipped off to the risk in May 1998, the CIA best gardening tips tipped off Condoleezza Rice some days beforehand that something exactly like this was imminent. She didn't pass on the tip to the president, and later swore on oath in evidence to the Senate that she'd never received that advice.

 

David Rothkopf is the CEO and Editor-at-Large of Foreign Policy. His new book, "Power, Inc.: The Epic Rivalry Between Big Business and Government and the Reckoning that Lies Ahead" is due out from Farrar, Straus & Giroux on March 1.

Read More