13 Years After 9/11, Was the Blood of So Many Shed in Vain?

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 11 September 2014
by Shen Dingli (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Nathan Hsu. Edited by Nicholas Eckart.
Thirteen years ago today, the U.S. suffered a terrorist attack the likes of which it had never seen before. The incident set off a series of aftershocks with deep and far-reaching implications. Although the U.S. has struggled mightily to extricate itself from the tangles of terrorism, that prospect has become increasingly bleak with the rise of the Islamic State, a turn of events that has left the U.S. with no choice but to refocus its attention upon Iraq. In the opinion of this author, there remain three major problems that have yet to be resolved over these past 13 years, the sum of which has exacerbated the situation even as the U.S. redoubles its efforts to fight terrorism.

First, there exist certain peculiarities behind why al-Qaida attacked the U.S. These qualities point to egregious flaws in Washington's Middle Eastern policy and remain an area that the U.S. refuses to address.

The U.S. made the decision to provide financial and material aid to jihadi organizations such as al-Qaida. At the time, the U.S. needed these fighters to disrupt the Soviets in Afghanistan, and as jihadi embraced the idea that "all [Muslims] under heaven are one family," they were naturally loathe to permit the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan at the expense of their Muslim brethren. In this way, as the U.S. propped up al-Qaida, it was simultaneously grooming its own future adversary. After the Soviet withdrawal, the choice was simple for al-Qaida to fix its sights on the U.S. as its next target due to the Western power's rejection of the establishment of a Palestinian state in favor of Israel, an agenda that runs directly counter to the interests of Palestinian Muslims.

And so despite U.S. claims that it opposes all forms of terrorism, the measures that it adopts have often only bred further terrorist activity, as the U.S. is unwilling to thoroughly digest and understand the factors underlying the terrorist mindset, and therefore cannot properly eradicate the root causes of this disease.

Second, why were U.S. policymaking mechanisms unable to prevent the Iraq War? The U.S. touts itself as a democratic nation in possession of the most sophisticated and scientific policymaking systems on the planet. Iraq was not party to the 9/11 attacks, and when the U.S. launched its "pre-emptive" strike on Iraq in the spring of 2003, it found that the Middle Eastern state had not even developed weapons of mass destruction. Yet while obviously lacking evidence, the U.S. still decided to launch the Iraq War. The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's shortcuts in its intelligence operations resulted in an inexcusable error on the weighty question of whether to go to war.

When the U.S. Senate voted upon the declaration of war, then-Senators Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and John McCain all made grave mistakes by giving their support. The three were all eventually to fail in their separate bids for the presidency, but setting the U.S. military on the path to invasion was an act of grievous irresponsibility to other countries, as well as to the U.S. itself. Regardless of whether a product of flawed judgment or pandering to the electorate, they all proved themselves unworthy of becoming president. Instead, it would be a state senator from Illinois who would go on to assume that mantle. That person, Barack Obama, opposed the Iraq War, was later elected to the U.S. Senate, and finally ended the war in his capacity as president.

Third, why has the U.S. not offered an apology for the damage done to Iraq? Although the U.S. military has since withdrawn, the war cost Iraqis dearly in personnel and property, as well as triggering a severe societal and economic crisis within the country. Despite this, the U.S. has yet to issue an apology for the invasion, hold to account those responsible for launching the war, or make recompense. The Iraq War not only backfired upon the U.S., but plunged the Middle East into chaos and shattered the stability of the region. Now, the Islamic State has proclaimed the establishment of a state in Iraq and Syria, fomented a widespread humanitarian crisis and forced the U.S. to take military action because of its violent inertia, all of which are inextricably linked to the initial U.S. war against terrorism. But is the feigned nonchalance with which the U.S. has responded the mark of a responsible power?

Thirteen years have passed since the attacks of 9/11, but the U.S. is still unwilling to reflect upon the reasons it was targeted or apologize to and compensate the nations it has harmed, a fact that will ensure the bitter lessons of that day go entirely wasted.

The author is deputy dean of Fudan University's Institute of International Studies.


13年前的今天,美国遭受空前恐怖袭击。这一事件产生了一系列具有深远影响的后果,虽然美国极力想摆脱反恐泥潭,但随着伊拉克和沙姆伊斯兰国(ISIS)兴风作浪,反恐形势更加严峻,美国不得不把目光再度移回伊拉克。笔者认为,13年后至少还有三大问题没有得到答案,这直接导致目前反恐“越反越恐”。

  首先,“基地”组织攻击美国的原因有些蹊跷,它反映了美国中东政策的严重问题,而美国迄今对此不愿正视。

  “基地”这样的圣战组织曾受美国财政与物质援助,因为当时美国需要其在阿富汗从事反苏军事活动,而参加圣战的穆斯林以“天下一家”为己任,不容苏军占领阿富汗从而损害穆斯林。美国扶植了“基地”,它也同时“栽培”了自己的对手。苏联撤军后,“基地”组织很容易把美国确定为下一个对手,因为美国长期支持以色列复国而拒绝巴勒斯坦建国,完全有损巴勒斯坦穆斯林的根本利益。

  美国声称反对一切形式的恐怖主义,但其现实中的反恐常常造成越反越恐,因为美国不愿认真听取并彻底搞懂恐怖主义的思想成因,从而无法对症下药,药到病除。

  其次,美国的决策机制为何不能阻止伊战?美国自诩作为民主国家,有着世界上最为优秀的科学决策制度。伊拉克没有参与“9·11”袭击,在美国于2003年春对伊发动“先发制人”打击之时,伊拉克也未发展大规模毁伤性武器。在明显缺乏证据和依据的情况下,美国依然决定启动伊战。美国中情局简化了情报作业程序,在是否动武的重大问题上,铸就了不可宽恕的错误。

  当时美国参议院在表决是否开战时,时任参议员希拉里、克里、麦凯恩三位都予支持,犯下严重错误。作为个人,这三位参议员先后参选总统均告失败,然而他们把美军送上侵犯他国之路,是对美国和他国的极不负责。无论是出于判断力有限,还是刻意取悦选民,他们都自证不配当总统。当上总统的,是那个来自伊利诺伊州的州参议员。此人在地方时就反对伊战,后来当上了联邦参议员,并以总统身份终止了伊战,他就是奥巴马。

  第三,美国伤害了伊拉克为何不予道歉?美军虽然撤出伊拉克,但这场战争给伊拉克的人员和财产带来了严重损害,并且带来了严重的社会与经济危机。但是,美国迄今未对入侵伊拉克表示道歉,未对战争发动者进行问责,未对伊拉克给予赔偿。美国的伊战不仅伤害自身,而且搞乱了伊拉克,破坏了中东稳定。当前,ISIS在伊拉克、叙利亚等地区宣布建立伊斯兰国并造成严重人道主义灾难,凶猛的势头逼迫美国不得不采取军事行动,这些其实都与美国当初反恐战争有着千丝万缕的联系。美国却对此表现得风淡云清,这应是一个负责任的大国所为吗?

  “9·11”事件发生已有13年,但美国不愿反思为何受袭,更不对被其受害之国致歉赔偿,这就注定了美国白白浪费了上述事件给它的惨痛教训。▲(作者是复旦大学国际问题研究院副院长)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Israel: Epstein Conspiracy: When the Monster Has a Life of Its Own and Rises Up

Mexico: Trump vs. Cuba: More of the Same

Russia: The 3rd-Party Idea as a Growing Trend*

China: Blind Faith in US ‘Security Commitments’ Is Short-Sighted

Indonesia: Trump’s 19% Tariffs: How Should We Respond?

Topics

Russia: The Issue of Weapons Has Come to the Forefront*

Colombia: How Much Longer?

Germany: Tariffs? Terrific!

Spain: The New American Realism

Mexico: Trump vs. Cuba: More of the Same

Ireland: US Tariffs Take Shine Off Summer Economic Statement

Israel: Epstein Conspiracy: When the Monster Has a Life of Its Own and Rises Up

Related Articles

China: Blind Faith in US ‘Security Commitments’ Is Short-Sighted

Germany: Trump’s Tariffs: China Acts, Europe Reacts

Australia: As Trump Turns His Back on Renewables, China Is Building the Future

Ethiopia: ‘Trump Guitars’ Made in China: Strumming a Tariff Tune

China: 3 Insights from ‘Trade War Truce’ between US and China