- cross-posted to:
- usnews
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- usnews
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
Two decades of U.S. policy appear to be rooted in a mistaken understanding of what happened that day. archive
Two decades of U.S. policy appear to be rooted in a mistaken understanding of what happened that day. archive
I’m old enough to remember the 9/11 attacks. It was never in question that Saudi Arabia was complicit in what happened. The majority of the terrorists were Saudi. It took a bit longer for the fact that the Saudi government was complicit to emerge, but we knew within a short time that at the very least, they provided financial support to the terrorists.
The argument for starting the “war on terror” was that Al-Qaeda planned the attack, so we should attack the countries that harbor them. At the time, the majority of the country supported this; I remember George Bush Jr.'s approval ratings being in the 90s for a short time. Even then, most of us knew that Saudi Arabia was at least complicit in what happened. The lust for revenge, as much as it was justified, made people forget that.
Over the last 23 years, I feel like a lot of Americans have forgotten the role that Saudi Arabia played in the events of 9/11; after all, they’re our “ally,” right? I have always been on the fence regarding whether or not invading Iraq and Afghanistan was a good idea. Back in 2001, though, I felt like invading Saudi Arabia was a great idea. 23 years later, I don’t feel any different. Should the United States have attacked Iraq and Afghanistan, I’d say “probably”; should we have attacked Saudi Arabia? Absolutely. Yet it never happened.
I agree with your entire comment except the end.
We shouldn’t have attacked Iraq or Afghanistan. The premise for the war in Iraq was that Saddam was harboring weapons of mass destruction. That was a flat out lie. The Iraq war and the power vacuum it created led to the creation of ISIS.
Afghanistan had elements of Al-Qaeda present. The Taliban tolerated them. We should have hunted bin Laden there and hit Al-Qaeda where we could find them, but toppling the government was mostly useless and we ended up needing to get the hell out of there after spending $2 trillion dollars, only to have the Taliban return.
Should we have attacked Saudi Arabia though? Absolutely. We should have actually done regime change there and maybe even helped ourselves to the oil revenues to cover the costs of 9/11 and our military. Our presence would’ve also helped modernize their medieval society in ways beneficial to the Middle East.
I agree with your entire comment except the end.
I’m not sure the US has the greatest track record when it comes to those sorts of occupational wars, realistically. I think the only times we’ve ever really seen it turn out well is maybe in vietnam, where we actively just like, lost the entire war and got sent packing, and they’re still having to deal with the ongoing problem of their country being contaminated by chemical incendiary weapons that produce larger percentages of birth defects. So, even given that Saudi Arabia is kind of a theocratic monarchic shithole, I dunno if us overthrowing it would realistically do any good, you know? I dunno. I’d probably need to see more on the numbers of dissent amount the saudi population. I think probably capitalizing on a popular movement for regime change, much like the arab spring, would probably be the best route if that was possible, and it would probably have to be more grassroots than something that the US might intentionally attempt to foment in the population, I’d imagine.
In totality though I’m not really sure to what extent it’s in the US’s best interest to destabilize saudi arabia. I think the US would probably prefer predictable fascists compared to, say, if they decided to rapidly nationalize and democratize their oil supply. Another, relatively understated, good reason to move away from petroleum, I would say.
Not disputing anything you said about Vietnam, but we did alright with Japan and South Korea.
I mean we did okay-ish with japan, and that was in the immediate post-ww2 period. There was a bunch of gaishas for a while that were complaining (iirc) about sexual assault from american troops, the nation immediately in the postwar period was fomented with a ton of nationalism and we didn’t really do a great job of undoing that. Though, their trajectory nowadays is pretty good, and it’s not like you can really blame all of that on the american occupation, really.
South korea, though, even though I don’t know as much, I’m pretty sure we fucked up that one, since that war basically never ended and nowadays the country is a late stage hypercapitalist hellscape where plastic surgery to make you look more western is incredibly common along with the prevalence of cults and a wealth disparity that’s pretty US-adjacent.
So I dunno if we did super well on those. Probably better than, say, Iraq, but I think our trajectory overall has been on a pretty consistent downwards trend since ww2.
Thanks for the correction
If we had only invaded Afghanistan, I could understand it. But Iraq, as I said at the time, had absolutely nothing to do with it, and it was bullshit.
People seem to forget, people even seemed to forget in 2002 and 2003, that Bush had been talking about finishing what his father started all the way back when he was running for president the first time in 1999. I kept telling people at the time.
I was in the Army then and we all knew it was Daddies War 2.0. I tried to help as many people get out of the Army as I could and then got myself out with full honors and no PTSD. Being a conscientious objector was hilariously easy because everyone knew “fuck bush and fuck the army – I aint fighting.”
Yet we keep electing those who did that shit.
No “we” don’t. A very small minority whom have been gerrymandered to such an extreme to give the frauds who have taken over our government with their bribes the power to enact these policies.
We didn’t need to invade any damn whole country, we have multiple special teams that train precisely for hunting and gathering. The govt of Iraq and the poppy fields of Afghanistan needed freedom though, so we went hot after the Saudis attacked us.
Murican capitalism war hooah!
You’re not wrong, we didn’t get bin Laden until we sent one of those special teams into the territory of an"ally".
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, did not have wmd’s, and was the only major Sunni power in the region. Saddam Hussain was not a good guy by any means but he actively worked against Iranian influence and was a stabilizing presence on the middle east after the first Gulf War. Pre-invasion Iraq was good for US policy. The invasion led to the growth of Iranian influence in the region and the rise of the Islamic State terrorist organization. We should not have attacked Iraq.
I was in support of attacking Afghanistan at the time and still think military action to go after Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Ladin was warranted. The diversion of resources from that conflict is another reason we shouldn’t have attacked Iraq. We probably should have extended that conflict into northern Pakistan where we knew Al-Qaeda’s leadership and the bulk of their fighters were hiding.
We definitely should have invaded Saudi Arabia. They provided training, equipment, travel, and money to enable the 9/11 attacks. 9/11 would not have been possible without Saudi Arabia’s support. Saudi Arabia was(is) in the curious position of publicly allying with us while plotting terrorism against us. Curious because by siding with us publicly they gave up Iran’s advantage of attacks against them potentially leading to conflict with Russia. Iran had some part in 9/11 but between their having a lesser role and the risk of Russia coming to their defense it would not have been worth it to attack Iran. Saudi Arabia had our backing instead of Russia’s. When they used proxies to attack us we should have leveled their royal palace. So far we haven’t even pulled our support.
Saddam was a CIA project that had gone rouge.
I haven’t forgotten that George H.W. Bush (the President’s father) was literally in a meeting with a member of the bin Laden family when the attacks occurred. The Bush and the bin Laden families were highly entangled in oil business dealings. I remember, too, that the only airplanes allowed to fly in U.S. airspace in the days after 9/11—all other traffic everywhere being grounded, stranding Americans far from home—were the flights taking members of the bin Laden family out of the United States, and back to Saudi Arabia.
I wonder why that attack on Saudi Arabia never happened?
Got a source for that?
Best I can find/remember, it is a distortion of this passage from Dan Briody’s book The Iron Triangle, or at the very least it is an unproven claim.
I do not, so I’ll take that back. It was widely discussed at the time, so I remembered it as Bush being there when the attack occurred, not that he left shortly before. I will say that I think it’s close enough for the point to stand that the Bush and bin Laden families had business interests in common, and had had personal dealings prior.
Thanks for the correction.
deleted by creator
For the US to invade Saudi Arabia, where Mecca and Medina are located, would have turned the entire Muslim world against it for generations. It would have been Afghanistan+Iraq times a hundred.