Garling Gauge

Another 9/11 Helps US?

Stu Bykofsky believes another 9/11 type attack would unite America“To save America, we need another 9/11″

The approaching anniversary of the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks has gotten many of us thinking about terrorism, America, foreign policy, and 9/11 itself. With reflections on 9/11 by numerous columnists expected any day now, Stu Bykofsky is quick out of the gate with a ponderous suggestion.

Bykofsky writes in his August 9, 2007 Philadelphia Daily News column that another 9/11-type attack is needed to bring a fractured America together again.

Why would he suggest that? Because Bykofsky is “sick of how splintered we are politically - thanks mainly to our ineptitude in Iraq - that we have forgotten who the enemy is.”

The combination of an obtuse-minded president, an unnecessary war, four years of occupying a country not connected with the 9/11 attacks, and the incompetent management of Iraqi and American peoples’ interests has drained America’s patience and spirit. Bipartisan bickering and in-party squabbling has left the American electorate frustrated with their representatives and aching for a feel-good moment.

A bullet-point summary of Bykofsky’s argument in own words:

There is the drip of daily casualties and victory is not around the corner.
America likes wars shorter than the World Series
We like fast food and fast war
Bush I did everything right, Bush II did everything wrong - but he did it with the backing of Congress
Democrats and Republicans are attacking one another, when they aren’t attacking themselves.
The dialog of discord echoes across America
Turn back to 9/11
Remember the community of outrage and national resolve?
We knew who the enemy was shortly after 9/11
What would sew us back together?
Another 9/11 attack.

Offering possible targets, Bykofsky suggests South Dakota’s Mount Rushmore, the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge, Wrigley Field in Chicago, and the Philadelphia subway system.

While acknowledging that American unity formed in the aftermath of such an attack would be finite, Bykofsky’s suggestion is a disturbingly curious one. Do Americans (or people in general) require loss to seek a unison of resolve? Is a common enemy the only way to bring our country together? Do we even need to be unified?

The first casualty in the aftermath of 9/11 was the potential for global good.

The wake of world support for the United States of America after 9/11 was unlike any other in history. And, like many great events, timing is everything.

For a few moments in the great chronology of human events America had the opportunity to truly change the world. In that brief period, our government had a real chance to lead, to inspire, to mend long ills, unite old enemies, tackle difficult issues, and help evolve our species.

We had potential.

We had the wrong leader.

What wears on the souls of Americans (and the popularity polls of the Bush administration) is the lack of positive outcome from our great loss. Americans love the come-back kid and the triumphant underdog. We can take our lumps, but we expect a positive resolution in the end. Clearly or unclearly, the Bush administration saw this window of opportunity for the advancement of American goals and promptly stumbled on its own hubris.

Right time, wrong mission.

The narrow-minded focus of our administration limited the potential of what was possible to military and political objectives. If your only tool is a military everything looks like war.

But the seeking out and reigning justice on murderous terrorists is not in question. The heart of the issue is the path to Iraq our leaders chose to seduce us down on the wave of global sentiment, and the fact that we followed so readily.

Did President Bush for even an instant consider using global good-will to tackle world hunger? What about genocide? Wouldn’t that have been a nice time for a Mid-East peace summit?

The issue brought forth in Bykofsky’s article harkens back and unearths the brotherly global mindset shared by much of the world in the wake of 9/11; the global mindset that created paths of possibilities that did not exist before, paths that America had the chance to exploit.

For good or ill, America had a wingman.

We chose ill, and the ‘greatest nation’ squandered a historic opportunity for greatness.

If better choices had been made and our military quickly extirpated from Iraq after the aircraft carrier victory speech, America would have had some type of resolution. Even with the Iraq invasion ill-advised from the outset, an awkward and misdirected resolution to the 9/11 attacks would have been better than our current situation.

No amount of guns, money or American blood can replace the lost potential now. If at Midnight tonight the insurgents gave up, the Iraqi government united, troops started coming home, and America claimed utter victory, the poison of poor decisions would still linger in the vein. Sadly the pain was predictable and is now growing unbearable.

Stu Bykofsky is wrong in suggesting another 9/11 type attack would unify the country.

Even though we live in a country that bases much of its power on a massive military budget, many of us were unprepared for the 9/11 attack. The real ’shock and awe’ was felt by the American people at the attack on our own soil, especially to those ignorant to the effects of American foreign policy.

U.S. Federal Budget 2008 fiscal year

Republican presidential candidate Rudolph Guiliani is a prime example, spearheading that type of ignorant thought, as demonstrated here in the second Republican presidential debate.

The type of unity Bykofsky reminisces for is not possible anymore, but a new type of unity is sure to come in the future.

Another 9/11 type attack would further splinter our government and citizens, for Americans no longer believe our current president will respond appropriately with the best decisions. Through his own choices, our leader is no longer a symbol of victory. Deservedly or not, our leader is now seen by many as a joke, a fraud, and a menace.

Only though new leadership can America unite in the way Bykofsky and so many of us long for. It is partially for this reason that the 2008 presidential election season has started so early, so few candidates have given praise to President Bush, and why the idea of ‘change’ is as popular this election cycle as it ever has been.

Presidential candidates with Change as their main theme:
Democratic Senator Barack Obama & Republican Congressman Ron Paul