9/11 - did it "succeed" ?

[Steely Glint]

It is practically 10 years since 9/11, the most devastating attack against America since Pearl Habour. Although Pearl Habour was an overwhelming tactical success for the Japanese, killing many American sailors and sinking many noble ships, it in was a major strategic blunder by the Japanese. Just four years after their triumph, their Empire was gone and Japan lay in ruins.

In those same terms, how do we assess the strategic success of the 9/11 attacks? Is America stronger and Al Qaeda weaker as a result, or is the reverse true?

[littlelolligagged]

I don't know. The attacks themselves were failures for Al Qaeda. They did not weaken the United States - or even remain in the public conscience very long. They led to aggravations at the airport, and not much else. Frankly, they picked the wrong targets to have some sort of devastating and long-lasting meaning. Office buildings aren't really something that stirs the hearts and emotions of most people for long. It was horrifying, and entirely too many people died, but it's not something that most people talk about or even think about much after all these years.

[Hazir]

I think that in the end Al Queda didn't succeed. After 9/11 we have seen the attacks in Madrid and London. But from there on what we mostly see is muslims killing other muslims in parts of the 'muslim' world and fairly random attacks on troops in the same parts of the world. What I see is more and more people condemning the violent ideology that drives Bin Laden and his supporters.

Here in Holland I see what many people see as a virulent anti-Islamic movement, but which I myself prefer to see as a refreshingly fresh breath of air in the debate about the position of muslims in this society. In Turkey I see, despite the persistant undercurrents of xenophobia, more freedom for minority religions.

[Ominous Gamer]

Granted I didn't pay much attention to America's attitude to the world, or how the world viewed America, directly before 9/11. Hell, I was still in public school, but... I would say America's "response" has done far more damage to herself than what the attacks did. Are you trying to connect the two?

[Aimless]

I've never really understood what Al-Quaeda's most important goals are, but I think that the 9/11 attacks and those that followed have at least given terrorism more importance in the public consciousness, not to mention in politics.

How much is it costing Western countries to "terror-proof" themselves? How much has Afghanistan cost the US so far? How about Iraq? (okay I'll admit I have no clear idea about how that war may be connected to the effects of the 9/11 attacks )

What have the effects been on the secularisation of the Muslim world, or at least on the moderation of Islam? Muslims may be killing each other, but not all Muslims are the same when it comes to ideology, after all.

Sorry, it seems I only had questions instead of answers

[Hazir]

I've never really understood what Al-Quaeda's most important goals are, but I think that the 9/11 attacks and those that followed have at least given terrorism more importance in the public consciousness, not to mention in politics.

How much is it costing Western countries to "terror-proof" themselves? How much has Afghanistan cost the US so far? How about Iraq? (okay I'll admit I have no clear idea about how that war may be connected to the effects of the 9/11 attacks )

What have the effects been on the secularisation of the Muslim world, or at least on the moderation of Islam? Muslims may be killing each other, but not all Muslims are the same when it comes to ideology, after all.

Sorry, it seems I only had questions instead of answers

Al Queda's most important goal is overthrowing the present regimes in the Arabian Peninsula. They target the US because the US is the single most important power that is propping up those regimes.

I think you could even say that western victims of Al Queda's terrorism are collateral damage. I think Al Queda is losing because their extremism is causing more and more moderates coming down on the side of a secular approach.

[LittleFuzzy]

It is practically 10 years since 9/11, the most devastating attack against America since Pearl Habour. Although Pearl Habour was an overwhelming tactical success for the Japanese, killing many American sailors and sinking many noble ships, it in was a major strategic blunder by the Japanese. Just four years after their triumph, their Empire was gone and Japan lay in ruins.

In those same terms, how do we assess the strategic success of the 9/11 attacks? Is America stronger and Al Qaeda weaker as a result, or is the reverse true?

I don't know whether America is stronger. Al Qaeda is certainly weaker. Islamic international terrorism might well be stronger. Looking at terrorism as a tool for conflict, its purpose is to broaden and deepen opposition, and to provoke responses from the opposition which will turn more uncommitted people away from them. The attacks had some success at that but nowhere near enough. That sort of campaign requires constant reinforcement and that's been lacking internationally.

[GGT]

It is practically 10 years since 9/11, the most devastating attack against America since Pearl Habour. Although Pearl Habour was an overwhelming tactical success for the Japanese, killing many American sailors and sinking many noble ships, it in was a major strategic blunder by the Japanese. Just four years after their triumph, their Empire was gone and Japan lay in ruins.

In those same terms, how do we assess the strategic success of the 9/11 attacks? Is America stronger and Al Qaeda weaker as a result, or is the reverse true?

I don't think 9/11 can be compared to Pearl Harbor, or Al Qaeda to Japan, or the same terms to assess "success".

But this War Against Terror hasn't worked out so well---our old approach of invade, attack, flex military muscle was (IMO) the wrong approach. We simply can't be everywhere and flush out terrorists who mean us harm, spread democracy, or build other nations.

In that sense AQ has succeeded in getting us to spend billions of dollars (trillions over time), loss of soldiers' lives, polarized our politics, stretched us thin....with constant-moving goal posts. There's no end point, no clear way to "win". AQ has managed to expose the ego of a superpower, so caught up in our image that the wind-down and withdrawal will be spun as a success.

[Hazir]

Could you please explain how a failed attempt of the Bush administration to link the regime of Saddam Hussien to 9/11 could be - in any way - be counted as a success for Al Queda? There is virtually no connection whatsover.

That other war could also not really be counted as a success for Al Queda, because for all its flaws, the war in Afghanistan ended the effective rule of the Taleban and their buddies. Something not being a success for the US, doesn't make it a success for the Al Queda.

In the end Al Queda didn't achieve it's objectives, but it is weakened by the US' reactions to it's tactics. Less than I would have expected 10 years ago though. I can't really understand how it is possible the US didn't wipe out the circles around Bin Laden a long time ago.

[GGT]

Was that directed at me or someone else, Hazir?

I thought this thread was for us to give our impressions, not necessarily an academic exercise in military strategy analysis....

[Hazir]

Was that directed at me or someone else, Hazir?

I thought this thread was for us to give our impressions, not necessarily an academic exercise in military strategy analysis....

It was directed at you yes. Given the location of this thread and the wording of the opening place I don't think we were just talking about 'impressions'.

But even if we were doing just that I still don't understand how you could come to your 'impressions' with the facts pointing in an entirely different direction.

[Dreadnaught]

It is practically 10 years since 9/11, the most devastating attack against America since Pearl Habour. Although Pearl Habour was an overwhelming tactical success for the Japanese, killing many American sailors and sinking many noble ships, it in was a major strategic blunder by the Japanese. Just four years after their triumph, their Empire was gone and Japan lay in ruins.

In those same terms, how do we assess the strategic success of the 9/11 attacks? Is America stronger and Al Qaeda weaker as a result, or is the reverse true?

I'm probably in the "The US isn't stronger, but Al Queada certainly is weaker" camp. But your question seems to be more about whether the cause of Islamic imperialism* was advanced.

In some ways it's certainly drawn a large number of people around the world to the cause of an Islamic "ummah" that must be developed and grown in opposition to the West. But it's also encouraged these people to overstep in ways that seriously hurts their cause (IE suicide bombings, taped beheadings).

On the flip side, September 11 has made elements in the "West" acutely aware of this radicalism and committed to fiercely resisting it, whether it's willingness to wage wars or pass a ban on wearing a burka. Though of course some see these Western responses as overstepping. I once read a snippet in a Thomas Friedman (NYTimes columnist) piece about how someone half-joked that Bin Laden had ruined the Islamisation of Europe. The gist was, "The demographics were on our side, then Bin Laden blew the lid off and now everyone's watching us [European Muslims]!"

In this sense, perhaps September 11 has helped delineate a socio-cultural divide across the world. And it's encouraged people on both sides of that divide to go overboard to promote their view of society. Maybe it crystalized differences that many felt were more fluid.

I realize the above was a bit of a ramble. But to be honest, I most often think about September 11 when I'm ironing my clothes the night before work. I don't know why I think of it then. But I've come to the conclusion that -- at least for me-- trying to think of the meaning of September 11 is maddening. You can try to connect it to so many trends and issues, but perhaps in many ways the attacks were meaningless. Trying to evaluate them in some kind of context beyond a dripping wet eye-for-an-eye is meaningless.


*I thought hard before using this phrase, but I honestly think it's the most accurate phrase to describe the sentiment often called "Islamism".

[GGT]

It was directed at you yes. Given the location of this thread and the wording of the opening place I don't think we were just talking about 'impressions'.

But even if we were doing just that I still don't understand how you could come to your 'impressions' with the facts pointing in an entirely different direction.

Because Al Qaeda or Taliban aren't countries or nations. They're terrorists that have cells all over the world, including the US. Just "wiping out Bin Laden's circles" wouldn't end the global War on Terror / extremism / radicalism. Or as Dread said, Islamic Imperialism.

[agamemnus]

This was a test of democracy; whether it will stand when threatened with extreme violence. Even with such a relatively minor attack (in the grand scheme of things.. does not compare to WWII, for example), our freedoms have been heavily assaulted by all three branches of government, and only now do I see the start of a turning point with many more people actually thinking for themselves vis-a-vis politics and our constitutional rights.

Of course, we shouldn't forget that besides the idea of this test, there are facts on the ground to consider. Minor countries were bombed, a few dozen million people became freer and the US lost a small fortune. We killed a bunch of Muslim whackjobs; if the Muslim world was less batshit insane, they would have already had at least as big a prison population as us to house the whackjobs in.

The heat gets to you...

[Hazir]

Maybe if the US wouldn't prop up regimes that use religion as a way to keep the masses down the situation in the "Islamic world'' would look very different, with people having an actual stake in the state actually functioning like a democracy under the rule of law. As things stand we will never know.

What we do know is that there is a direct connection between the House of Saud being the BFF of the US government and the flying of airplanes into the WTC towers, Pentagon and the dirt of Pennsylvania.

[GGT]

Maybe if the US wouldn't prop up regimes that use religion as a way to keep the masses down the situation in the "Islamic world'' would look very different, with people having an actual stake in the state actually functioning like a democracy under the rule of law. As things stand we will never know.

What we do know is that there is a direct connection between the House of Saud being the BFF of the US government and the flying of airplanes into the WTC towers, Pentagon and the dirt of Pennsylvania.

You had me at "if the US wouldn't prop up regimes".

[Ziggy Stardust]

Al Qaida may be weaker, but there's a shitload of paranoid fear of terrorism in the world since 9/11.

Isn't that the goal of terrorism?

[EyeKhan]

It is practically 10 years since 9/11, the most devastating attack against America since Pearl Habour. Although Pearl Habour was an overwhelming tactical success for the Japanese, killing many American sailors and sinking many noble ships, it in was a major strategic blunder by the Japanese. Just four years after their triumph, their Empire was gone and Japan lay in ruins.

In those same terms, how do we assess the strategic success of the 9/11 attacks? Is America stronger and Al Qaeda weaker as a result, or is the reverse true?

Without reading other responses, a few thoughts:

#1. AQ lost their Islamo-Fascist heaven in Afghanistan, but on the other hand they've had a lot of fighting opportunity there since, and causing a war was likely a goal of the attack. Plus its much more convenient for them to fight over there than to attack the US elsewhere. Oh, and they're winning. How much of that fighting is AQ supported / supporters I'm unsure of and whether the new Taliban will be buddies with AQ when its all over, if they win, is uncertain.

#2. I don't think it matters to AQ if they are destroyed in this thing, just so long as they catalize an Islam vs. West war. I'm not sure they've been wildly successful at that, either.

#3. The US deeply compromised its core values and lost the moral high ground perhaps for the duration. That's a significant victory for AQ.

#4. The US is now bogged down in two wars expending lots of money it doesn't have with no perceivable "out" and the most opptimistic scenario of 'victory' being not so good. That's an AQ victory to be sure.

#5. Saddam's Iraq, once a staunch enemy of AQ, was vanquished and they've had a playground to fight the US in for half a decade, at verying degrees of success and failure, so you could reasonably call that a victory for them.

[']['ear]

It is practically 10 years since 9/11, the most devastating attack against America since Pearl Habour. Although Pearl Habour was an overwhelming tactical success for the Japanese, killing many American sailors and sinking many noble ships, it in was a major strategic blunder by the Japanese. Just four years after their triumph, their Empire was gone and Japan lay in ruins.

In those same terms, how do we assess the strategic success of the 9/11 attacks? Is America stronger and Al Qaeda weaker as a result, or is the reverse true?

Interesting and timely question. OK, I'm going to totally disregard Pearl Harbor. Utterly irrelevant, with completely different goals.

9/11 was very successful. We could debate about the real goals of bin Laden and Mullah Omar and not agree. But let's toss some out there:

Sow dissent and terror.
Weak success, beyond the short term. Most rational people don't worry about it any more, but a lot of people prone to fear DO think about it. My wife still flinches at any reference to it, or even a NYC skyline that still has the twin towers. There are still people who can't fly because of it The US has spent tens of billions on security measures. The US has spent over a trillion on two wars justified by that single event.

So, tough to assess impact. Direct? Moderate. Indirect? Huge. Altered world history, international relations,and even to a small degree the way that democracies run (the US more than any). Think of all the central Asian former Soviet Republics, their relationship to the US and Russia. Think of the altered perception/role of Pakistan, which in turn dramatically affects India. China is tangentially involved. Think of how the assessment of Iran as a threat has changed through the new lens of terrorism. Hell, think of the loss of Iran's counter-balance, Iraq. If an Iranian nuke is ever used as a terrorist weapon, or if we go to war with Iran to avoid that, it can be traced to a significant degree to 9/11. The trickle down effect is huge, and doubtlessly underestimated.

Alter western democracy.

Mild. It has eroded certain rights, and certainly altered certain judicial practices. It had a huge effect electorally, and probably guaranteed Bush a second term. It has altered politics, in that each candidate is evaluated on how tough they will be on terrorism. It has made countries more paranoid about Muslim unrest, perhaps leading to anti-Muslim laws like those in action or planned in France, Netherlands, UK, elsewhere. But the core of these democracies and economies hasn't changed.

Raise their profile A: Western.

Moderate. Because of 9/11, knowledge of the cause, the related peoples and so forth has been huge. Terrorists are major players, altering elections in several countries. Their opinions and reactions to their actions is greatly amplified, because the potential consequences have been greatly amplified. The stakes were raised. WAY raised.

Raise their profile B: Islamic.

Huge. This may get at their ultimate goal: Islamic governments throughout the Mideast and Persia. They have managed to set up an "us vs.them" dynamic that has permeated the entire Muslim world to some degree. That is a huge success from the perspective of their presumed ultimate goal. They also managed to get a popular uprising to fight the US to a standstill in Iraq for a few years. Like Vietnam, this has caused lasting damage to the US hegemony. Together, that and the economic drain may increase the likelihood of US loss of hegemony. But more relevant, their popularity has increased through the Muslim world, and increased pressure of secular governments (think of Turkey's swing to more religious gvmt). Now, they've made some missteps, but I think that they are thought of as heroes in many areas, and they have a fantastic soapbox from which to preach their message. Huge success.


Downsides: they are largely in hiding, and I'm not certain if they have much operational capacity any more. BUT, there are copy cat groups all over, and the US cannot keep up the pressure indefinitely. Fighting Iraq in the first place and failing to execute Afghanistan were horrible failures, and thus the US greatly amplified the efficacy of al Qaeda's actions. At this point, if al Qaeda disappeared and its leadership was utterly destroyed, I think they would still consider themselves successful.

At a strictly operational level, 9/11 was a genius David v.Goliath operation. Smash success, probably beyond their wildest dreams (and a fair amount of that luck, since I doubt they actually thought the twin towers would go down.)

I don't know. The attacks themselves were failures for Al Qaeda. They did not weaken the United States - or even remain in the public conscience very long. They led to aggravations at the airport, and not much else. Frankly, they picked the wrong targets to have some sort of devastating and long-lasting meaning. Office buildings aren't really something that stirs the hearts and emotions of most people for long. It was horrifying, and entirely too many people died, but it's not something that most people talk about or even think about much after all these years.

How can you say that? I've read studies that claim that more people remember the precise details of 9/11 personal context that either Pearl Harbor or the Kennedy assassination for their respective generations. It was stunning imagery that seared itself into the memory of almost every American,and a damned large number of folks from around the globe. It might be hard to assess its final concrete impact, but it was a truly singular event in human history. My money is on history books even a hundred or two hundred years ago having pictures of it, depending on how history or societies go. It may be the watershed moment when a lot of poor oppressed folks in the world realized that they could kick the shit out of the biggest power of all. That has always been one of the biggest risks of wars like Iraq or Vietnam, but it goes a hundredfold for an event like 9/11. The enraged or just flat-out mentally ill will always know that they can succeed in expressing their bile. I hope not, but it has the potential to shift the role of nihilism in the world. Could be a minor blip, but could be a turning point. I pray for the former.

I don't know whether America is stronger. Al Qaeda is certainly weaker. Islamic international terrorism might well be stronger.

Exactly.

Looking at terrorism as a tool for conflict, its purpose is to broaden and deepen opposition, and to provoke responses from the opposition which will turn more uncommitted people away from them. The attacks had some success at that but nowhere near enough. That sort of campaign requires constant reinforcement and that's been lacking internationally.

Yes, they may have screwed up since 9/11. The large scale killing of other Muslims has played poorly to their constituency, and maybe have reversed the gains they had with 9/11. However, that does not lessen the "success" of 9/11, just says that the al Qaeda leadership didn't have the chops to optimally capitalize. Lucky us!

Al Qaida may be weaker, but there's a shitload of paranoid fear of terrorism in the world since 9/11.

Isn't that the goal of terrorism?

Yup. Plus a brilliantly executed attack impressed a lot of people. People whose admiration we really don't want directed that way.

[']['ear]

Without reading other responses, a few thoughts:

#1. AQ lost their Islamo-Fascist heaven in Afghanistan, but on the other hand they've had a lot of fighting opportunity there since, and causing a war was likely a goal of the attack. Plus its much more convenient for them to fight over there than to attack the US elsewhere. Oh, and they're winning. How much of that fighting is AQ supported / supporters I'm unsure of and whether the new Taliban will be buddies with AQ when its all over, if they win, is uncertain.

There are always other bases in poor fundie backwaters. Pakistan is unlikely to maintain its campaign against the Taliban. Somalia, Yemen and other countries are anarchical enough. And there will be others in the future,and Afghanistan is only unviable while the US has tens of thousands of troops there, which is unsustainable.

#2. I don't think it matters to AQ if they are destroyed in this thing, just so long as they catalize an Islam vs. West war. I'm not sure they've been wildly successful at that, either.

\

Totally agreed that is their thinking, and also that their success there has been weak.Like I said,I think they shot themselves in the foot on this one. The rank and file aren't too keen on tons of Muslim civilian casualties. that fed into the game of the moderates and harmed the extremists.

#3. The US deeply compromised its core values and lost the moral high ground perhaps for the duration. That's a significant victory for AQ.

Home democracy not so much, but internationally the US looked like assholes in Iraq. Belated modest success is probably too late. If you have to take a football game out to 30 quarters to win it, most won't remember the win. They'll remember that a bunch of ragtags fought the US to a standstill for a couple of years, and that the US lost any moral high ground they had from democracy and freedom

#4. The US is now bogged down in two wars expending lots of money it doesn't have with no perceivable "out" and the most opptimistic scenario of 'victory' being not so good. That's an AQ victory to be sure.

I think all of this has actually shifted the probability of a US loss of hegemony/decline. Very hard to assess the degree of that contribution, but it is there. Well over a trillion in debt from those two wars may have an impact.

#5. Saddam's Iraq, once a staunch enemy of AQ, was vanquished and they've had a playground to fight the US in for half a decade, at verying degrees of success and failure, so you could reasonably call that a victory for them.

Agreed. And I look at this as freeing Iran to be much more active. Balance of Power is a major theme in IR (though Loki never mentions it), and certainly this seriously unbalanced things. In 2003 I predicted that invading/occupying Iraq may have been the worst foreign policy decision of any country in half a century in terms of magnitude. This may still be on track. But even if it doesn't play out that way, the risk was unconscionable. God, but I wish Georgie's dad had been president when this went down.

[EyeKhan]

Very hard to assess the degree of that contribution, but it is there. Well over a trillion in debt from those two wars may have an impact.

I've heard assessments that Iraq has cost us an additional trillion dollars a year.

In 2003 I predicted that invading/occupying Iraq may have been the worst foreign policy decision of any country in half a century in terms of magnitude. This may still be on track. But even if it doesn't play out that way, the risk was unconscionable. God, but I wish Georgie's dad had been president when this went down.

I've heard the claim its in the running for worst ever. Not sure how you quantify that ...

[LittleFuzzy]

Al Qaida may be weaker, but there's a shitload of paranoid fear of terrorism in the world since 9/11.

Isn't that the goal of terrorism?

Not really, no. The fear is a means to an end. And while you may characterize it is a shitload, it's really nothing major in the context of an effective terror campaign.

[LittleFuzzy]

The large scale killing of other Muslims has played poorly to their constituency, and maybe have reversed the gains they had with 9/11

You can actually make all sorts of gains by killing lots of the uncommitted who you eventually want on your side, but you really need to maintain a direct presence in doing so, and it helps if you can coopt people from within that population, via intimidation, to take point in doing so.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Not really, no. The fear is a means to an end.

True.

And while you may characterize it is a shitload, it's really nothing major in the context of an effective terror campaign.

Have there been effective terror campaigns which sparked more fear or did you mean "an effective terror campaign' as a concept?

[']['ear]

I've heard assessments that Iraq has cost us an additional trillion dollars a year.

That seems high, but I just don't know. The accounting for such things is generally murky, and has gotten murkier as the US has gotten into the practice of contracting activities previously provided by the military.

I've heard the claim its in the running for worst ever. Not sure how you quantify that ...

Well, I make no claim to be a sophisticated student of history, but I'd have to guess that there are worse. Still, when you way the modest gain with the spectacular cost, it's hard to argue anything but failure. Also, as I like to point out, the human cost has been WAY underestimated by just looking at US fatalities. As I've said before, that is ~5x underestimate of serious injuries. Oh yeah, the US is over-stocked in homeless guys for the next 30-40 years. booyah!

[EyeKhan]

Well, I make no claim to be a sophisticated student of history, but I'd have to guess that there are worse. Still, when you way the modest gain with the spectacular cost, it's hard to argue anything but failure.

The jury's still out on there being a a modest gain. . .

[']['ear]

Heh, I typed "way" instead of "weigh." Clearly not entirely focused...

Totally agreed on jury being out, I was just giving it the "best possible scenario" treatment.

[LittleFuzzy]

Have there been effective terror campaigns which sparked more fear

Certainly. For a recent example there was the big initial push for the Palestinian's 2nd Intifadah. And the Algerian Revolution remains probably the most successful example of a large-scale asymmetric terror campaign. International terrorism, by its nature, is going to have a far harder time with it.