9/11 and the Aftermath

                  

On a clear and sunny morning September the 11th America and the world are changed forever. At 8:46 a.m. a hijacked Flight 11 loaded with 92 passengers slams into the north tower of New York's World Trade Center. Shortly there after at 9:03 a.m. Flight 175 with 65 passengers flies into the south tower of the World Trade Center. President George W. Bush learns of the attacks at 9:05 a.m. while sitting in a second grade classroom at an elementary school in Sarasota, Fla. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card informs him of the attacks, whispering into his ear during the students' reading lesson. At 9:37 a.m. Flight 77 with 64 people crashes into the pentagon. After burning for 56 minutes, the south tower of the World Trade Center collapses at 9:59 a.m. The fall, which kills approximately 600 workers and first responders, lasts 10 seconds. At 10:03 a.m. the fourth and final hijacked commercial airliner with 44 passengers aboard crashes in a field in Shanksville, Pa. At 10:28 a.m. after burning for 102 minutes, the north tower of New York's World Trade Center collapses, killing approximately 1,400 people. All told the September 11th attacks resulted in 2996 innocent deaths as well as the 19 hijackers. More than 90 countries lost citizens in the attacks on the World Trade Center. Most of those who died were US citizens. It quickly became evident that the perpetrators of the attack were cells of Islamic extremist from the radical Sunni Islamist terrorist group al-Qaeda headed by Osama Bin Laden. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks America invaded Afghanistan in search of Osama Bin Laden, as well as al-Qaeda leaders and their operatives and sought the removal of the Taliban by force and the installation of a democratically elected government. In subsequent years the United States, under the Bush administration, America would also invade Iraq, remove Saddam Hussein from power and seek to install a democratically elected government, all under the banner of the Global War on Terrorism.

 

The rationale for the Iraq War has been a contentious issue since the Bush administration began actively pressing for military intervention in Iraq in late 2001. The Iraq Resolution of the U.S. Congress articulates the primary rationalization for the Iraq War. The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world". Throughout late 2001, 2002, and early 2003, the Bush Administration built a case for invading Iraq, culminating in then Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 2003 address to the Security Council. Shortly before the invasion, the U.S. and UK emphasized that Saddam Hussein was developing "weapons of mass destruction" and that he thus threatened the world. Shortly after the invasion, the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense and Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence agencies largely discredited evidence related to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program as well as links to Al-Qaeda. But after 13 years of war the question remains. Are we safer?

 

According to CBS, "America's foreign policy community has never been in so much agreement about the performance of an administration overseas, 84 percent of the respondents think that we're losing the war on terror," Mike Boyer, editor of the Terrorism Index, says. The numbers show that with the exception of Afghanistan, the experts think the Bush administration's actions actually had a negative impact on the war against terror. Eighty-seven percent say the Iraq war has hurt us, 81 percent say Guantanamo Bay prison has."At the core of Osama bin Laden's argument is the belief that the U.S. is a nation that is a predatory power; that is, seeks to occupy other countries, Muslim countries, seeks to steal their wealth and destroy their religion, and by using our military the way we have, and particularly by invading Iraq, we have inadvertently confirmed that message for lots of people in the Muslim world who are sitting on the fence," believes Daniel Benjamin, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic And International Studies. Benjamin, also the co-author of "The Next Attack," says, "What we have is something that is spreading, something that is becoming more dangerous. It's like a cancer that has metastasized and so, instead of being able to point at just one tumor, you're looking at a lot of bad news in a lot of different places." The names of the recognizable bogeymen the United States went after, guns blazing after 9/11, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, have been overshadowed by the name of a greater terror, the real enemy, the president and the policy experts agree, is radical Islam. So how does the United States fight enemies like these? That's where the controversy comes in. "If we cast this as a war of religions, if we cast this as a clash of civilizations, we really are playing into our enemy's hands because there are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, and we don't need 1.2 billion enemies," Daniel Benjamin says."Our goal is to destroy radical Islam. That is the priority and along the way if we irritate or alienate people, well so be it," Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum explains the strategy, saying, "The rough model for what we do in this war would be the cold war which lasted for decades. You do everything. "If polls are to be believed, something else is missing. According to a CBS News/New York Times poll, 45 percent, nearly half the American public, don't believe that a president, any president, can do much about terrorism. But number one on their list: 82 percent said reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Their rationale, why hand billions of dollars over to the very people who want to attack us.

 
With today's security apparatus the 9/11 conspirators would never be able to conduct the same kinds of actions today as they did pre-9/11 getting into the United States, taking flight lessons, and wiring money overseas without catching authorities' attention. Their command and control centers in Germany, where a cell in Hamburg is believed to have planned the 9/11 attacks, as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan either no longer exist or have been severely crippled. Their ability to conduct such an attack has been greatly diminished. Not to mention the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden and the many missions and drone strikes that have killed leaders of al-Qaeda and their affiliates. Al-Qaeda is but a shell of its former self. Mainly new groups have aligned and claimed affiliation with al-Qaeda in recent times ranging from the Arab Spring through the Syria conflict. However, they are predominately local warring factions concentrated on the conflicts taking place in the middle east and in no way the well funded, well trained, well organized and highly secretive al-Qaeda of old. Without a doubt we have severely crippled al-Qaeda's ability to stage an attack on our homeland. Unfortunately, Islam is going through their dark ages and we have not been able to defeat al-Qaeda in ideology. That they must overcome in time and in solidarity. Today our greatest threat is the paradox of the "lone wolf". The singular unremarkable individual deeply embedded in our society who through a set of dynamic psychological responses or pure sociopathic behavior ideologically aligns themselves with the message of al-Qaeda or other terrorist activity and attempts to strike at our homeland. This in time may prove to be the most difficult adversary to overcome.

Citizens United and Super PACs

In 2008 Citizens United, a non-profit organization and conservative lobbying group, created a 90 minute documentary named Hillary: The Movie that was highly critical of the future presidential candidate and Democratic Senator from New York Hillary Clinton. Fearing that it would violate federal election laws it sought an injunction against the F.E.C. in federal district court, which sided with the F.E.C. and as a result the movie could not be shown on television right before the 2008 Democratic primaries under the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002. In 2010, on appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that spending limits were unconstitutional, allowing essentially unlimited contributions by corporations and unions to political action committees. The Super PAC is born.

Those that support the Citizens United ruling often defend it by stating that it is a free speech issue protected by the First Amendment. Additionally, they say it helps to inform voters and level the playing field in political races were the 'little guy' is up against a deep pocketed better known incumbent. Also, they say that it helps to increase transparency because Super PACs are required to report their donors on a quarterly basis to the F.E.C. Many conservatives believe it also benefits them in the media arena because they believe that the main stream media is inherently pro-Democrat, thus leveling the playing field for them.

Those that oppose the Citizens United ruling often state that corporations should not be granted the same First Amendment rights as citizens. They fear that elections and politicians will be bought and corrupted by such a powerful force. They also fear the uber-wealthy 0.0000063 percent of billionaires that posted 80% of the Super PACs donations with hawkish agendas and now that politician they just spent boat loads of capitol on has a major favor to repay. They believe elections are for the People and not for unions and corporations.

As for Myself, I find it laughable that corporations think they should have a say in any free democratic elections. Yeah, they can have a say if they can walk into a voting hall with their nonexistent legs and fit into one of those tiny booths and read the ballot with their nonexistent eyes and use the pen to check the box for their candidate with their nonexistent hands. Oh, you mean that cant do any of that. Well they don't have too because the U.S. Supreme Court gave them the green light to try to dump millions upon millions of dollars into negative attack ads to sway you into doing it for them. Shame.

Interview of Firefighters Union President W. O'Brien

For my second post, I have been asked to conduct an interview with a person of my choosing to gauge what their political thoughts and stances are on certain political hot button issues. The individual I chose is someone that I have known for the past 7 years while working for a local Fire Department. We have fought fires together, played on the department hockey team together, and are union brothers fighting to maintain our union rights against those who wish to take our hard earned benefits away from ourselves and our families. His name is Bill O'Brien and he is our elected union President. He's held multiple union billets before being elected as our President and I respect the hard work and countless hours he puts in on our behalf in an often thankless job. When I asked him if he would be willing to be interviewed for this assignment he said, "Anything for you, Mac, fire away"

We have had countless political conversations in the past, primarily in the firehouse over coffee, about a whole range of topics. Bill voted for President Barak Obama and considers himself a "Moderate Democrat", That is, on most issues he finds himself on the left side of the argument. He is pro-union, pro-choice, pro-small business, and pro-Obamacare. He does believe in a strong and robust military, low taxes, and the right to bear arms(after a substantial and thorough background check and mental health screening), which is where the moderate comes in. He is a realist and understands and believes that most issues should be judged on a case by case basis. He understands why politicians have to play the "game" and vote the party line but also believes that what is wrong with government. He has had many life experiences that have guided him to his political beliefs like as a young man his mother worked for democrats in state government, his experience as a small business owner and his affiliation with the union, both as a member and a leader, just to name a few. He believes that the economy is of the utmost importance to a stable America and believes that the driving force behind this last recession was deregulation of the banks and mortgage securities. "They couldn't write them fast enough. You could buy a $400k home on a $25k a year job!". On the foreign policy front, when asked to give a grade to American foreign policy he gives it a C+ and explains that while no one does as much good around the world as we do, he believes, that we cherry pick where to intervene based on transparent ulterior motives, such as oil. When it comes to the problem of proliferation of nuclear arms by Iran he believes the best course of action is continued sanctions through the U.N. and an eventual containment policy.

My own beliefs have changed and been shaped over the last two formative decades of my life. As a U.S. Marine combat veteran, like many Marines I have known, I am a pragmatist and a realist. I used to be much more of a Republican than I am today. When your in the service you have a very keen understanding that when a republican is in office you can expect a pay raise and new equipment and when a democrat is in office you can expect them to try to shrink the military and as a result promotions will be harder to come by, thus no pay raise either way. Plus, the hippie movement of the 60's and early 70's was the anti-military and thought still to be closely aligned with the liberal democrats of today. I am, however, fiscally conservative on some issues like foreign aid and feel we direct to many tax dollars overseas where very seldom does the lion share end up where it should. It mainly just lines the pockets of thugs and politicians of the receiving country. On the other hand, I don't think we put enough money into our schools and education system.

My pragmatism firmly places me as an independent. Fiscally pretty conservative and socially pretty liberal. I want to hear all sides of an issue, conduct my own research and analysis on the subject, and only then will I make a decision for or against an issue. I walk no party line. I was, also, a prison guard for a period of time and that experience shaped my thought on the criminal justice system in our country. There are certainly many countless bad characters in our prison system who absolutely deserve every minute of their incarceration but, as a member of the gang unit I got to interview a lot of young gang members. Sometimes I couldnt help but wonder if some of these kids just got swept up in the neighborhood debauchery. To some I would ask "you seem like a bright kid, you got a good sense of humor, you speak well, how the hell did you end up here?" And I meant it. These kids were generally pretty funny and goofed around like all young men and some didn't seem like the gun toting bad actor that their police record said they were. Their response "your father was military, your grandfather was military, your military. My brothers, cousins and uncles were banging. Moms too. What you expect?" And he was right. You are a product of your environment. I still believe that if you do the crime and you man up and do the time, but I think we have to create more urban social outreach programs, youth violence prevention and after school programs to get to these kids before they go wrong. It's a community problem. Fathers need to be in the house too, but, that a discussion for another time. On another topic, In no way am I an apologist for America's actions overseas, but we certainly have made mistakes and miscalculations on foreign policy decisions. Leaders have to make very tough decisions all the time and not everyone is going to like those decisions, but they must be made. They need to be made with good intelligence and acted out with the right intentions and tact. History has shown us that in foreign policy, for every action there is a reaction and the eventual unintended consequences. Systems of belief, cultural differences, regional tensions, economic disparity and general mistrust are just a few of many variables that can affect a foreign policy outcome. That is a tough game to get right and you are going to make enemies any way you slice it. The history of the Afghani mujaheddin, Russia, and 9/11 is a clear example of that. As a final note, I find what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the 2nd amendment, as stated in his biography, very interesting, "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." and “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” ― Thomas Jefferson. One must remember they were firing muskets in their time and the weapons of today are far more devastating and lethal. Additionally, those words were written a very long time ago and in the context and relevancy of his day. Also, I can think of no tyrannical leader since the birth of this nation that needed to be overthrown and no one knows what the future holds and I will not even speculate on it, but there are certainly plenty of instances throughout history where the people were too weak to act. However, as a parent and in the context of today, where statistically, every other day in this country a child is accidentally killed by a weapon found inside their home, I have many reservations. As an American I still believe in the Right to Bear Arms but, admittedly it gives me pause.

Just as a side note: I included the pictures of me sitting on the bench giving the thumbs up and down because I thought they were funny. I wish I could go back retake the pictures giving both parties a thumbs down. 1. How do you vote in the last election? 2. Do you consider yourself a liberal, conservative or an independent? 3. What life experiences have shaped your political values? 4. What key issues are most important to you when it comes to U.S. Policy? 5. Who will you likely vote for in the future? Are you happy with your party? 6. What was the driving force behind the last recession? 7. What is America's foreign policy grade? 8. What should America do about Iran? 9. How do you feel about Obamacare? 10. Define the 2nd amendment as you interpret it.

Introducing Myself

Hi I'm Steve McLaughlin and this is my debut to the blogging world. At 32 years old I'm a college freshman and a very proud father of a 21 month old little girl. I'm also a husband of almost 3 years and as my wife likes to say she needed a rock in her life and she found that in me but the the truth is she undoubtedly fills that billet in our family. The last seven years fighting fires and the previous seven serving as a United States Marine infantryman at home and abroad often in hostile environments. Without a doubt my most changellenging, difficult and humbling assignment of all has been being a good father and husband. The gentleness that I feel today toward my wife and daughter was something that I never I needed leading a platoon of young Marine Badasses in combat, So I thought. Another truth is those Marines were riveted with quiet emotion. From just trying to stay alive, to not letting the guy to their left and right down, to missing their family, and in some cases their own wife and children, I learned the balance a good leader must strike between mission accomplishment and troop welfare. Important lessons I carry with me today as I lead my new warriors in life.

Between March and November I saltwater fish with all my free time. Early in the season for cod and haddock and later for striped bass commercially and shark for sport. I'm fortunate enough to have turned something I love, into making just enough money to justify getting up at 2am and heading to the dock for an often 18hr day on the water hunting giant Bluefin Tuna. The experience of having the fastest fish in the ocean, weighing upwards of 1000lbs, tethered to you by a thin piece of monofilament is epic and the pinnacle of the angling experience. The three man crew locking horns in a battle between man and beast in a give and take, often over several hours, is a test of endurance, patience and skill by those on each end of that thin line.

In conclusion to my opening blog, I look forward to experiencing new things and learning more about myself and my capabilities as I embark on this new endeavor that is the challenge of obtaining a college education. From my class syllabus, I understand that I will be required to post to this blog at least on a every other week basis and for anyone who follows these post I warrant that they will be true and raw and hopefully somewhat entertaining. Good luck to all my classmates this semester and I look forward to learning more about you, as well, through your own blogs and posts.