LA Times: Was 9/11 really that bad?(Horrible Act but History says Overreaction)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-bell28jan28,0,7267967.story?track=mostviewed-homepage

IMAGINE THAT on 9/11, six hours after the assault on the twin towers and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks on the United States, taking an additional 3,000 lives. Imagine that six hours after that, there had been yet another wave. Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead. This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II, and contemplating these numbers may help put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against terrorism.

It also raises several questions. Has the American reaction to the attacks in fact been a massive overreaction? Is the widespread belief that 9/11 plunged us into one of the deadliest struggles of our time simply wrong? If we did overreact, why did we do so? Does history provide any insight?

Certainly, if we look at nothing but our enemies' objectives, it is hard to see any indication of an overreaction. The people who attacked us in 2001 are indeed hate-filled fanatics who would like nothing better than to destroy this country. But desire is not the same thing as capacity, and although Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States.

Yet a great many Americans, particularly on the right, have failed to make this distinction. For them, the "Islamo-fascist" enemy has inherited not just Adolf Hitler's implacable hatreds but his capacity to destroy. The conservative author Norman Podhoretz has gone so far as to say that we are fighting World War IV (No. III being the Cold War).

But it is no disrespect to the victims of 9/11, or to the men and women of our armed forces, to say that, by the standards of past wars, the war against terrorism has so far inflicted a very small human cost on the United States. As an instance of mass murder, the attacks were unspeakable, but they still pale in comparison with any number of military assaults on civilian targets of the recent past, from Hiroshima on down.

[barb162]

1. It's the first time we were attacked on our own soil since 1941

and the first time in about 200 years we sustained an attack in major cities by outsiders (not civil war)

[Veronica.Franco]

15. Hawaii was NOT a state in 1941

They attacked our military base in Hawaii ... FWIW ...

[roguevalley]

20. wrong. There was an attack in eastern Oregon that killed a whole

buncha people and it was launched by Japan. My mother's sunday school class was going on a picnic near Lakeview, Oregon. they found something on the ground that they touched and it blew up. the Japanese had sent bomb-laden devices on high altitude balloons on the jet stream to land in American forests and start fires. the bomb blew up and killed a lot of kids and their teachers. my mom wasn't allowed to go, my grandma wanted her home or she would have died. 1943 or 1944 I believe. They were the only americans to die on American soil in WWII. Betcha didn't know that, did you?

[sandnsea]

21. Six people killed

There's also some trails on the south coast that lead to a couple sites where bombs dropped. It is something I don't think most people know about WWII. I didn't until I moved here and actually read it online. I lived in KFalls too, so did my dad and my uncle. I never heard anything about the kids killed in the bomb attack. Not sure why it isn't talked about.

[roguevalley]

23. there's a plaque at the site. its sort of lost history. very sad. the

woman teacher who survived, lost her kids. she went as a missionary to viet nam with her husband and died there in an attack. very star crossed people, those. :(

[moblsv]

2. I don't entirely agree

It's like saying Iraq isn't that bad because WWII had more soldiers die.

Regardless, the overreaction point is valid. Bush has done far more damage than the terrorists could have ever hoped for on 9/11.

[lvx35]

3. I totally agree. 9/11 did NOT change the world.

Its about the same as the amount of people who die from aids, cancer, or heart disease in a day. The amount of deaths was totally insignificant in the big picture compared to many other things. Yet it was exploited as a massive thing.

[niyad]

5. and approximately 1,000 maternal deaths each and every day.(2004 stats)

World Population Day 2004 - Introduction

Maternal Deaths Still Unacceptably High

Recent findings on maternal mortality by WHO, UNICEF and UNFPA show that a woman living in sub-Saharan Africa has a 1 in 16 chance of dying in pregnancy or childbirth. This compares with a 1 in 2,800 risk for a woman from a developed region. These findings, as well as statistical data by region and country, are contained in a new global report on maternal mortality released in October 2003 by the three agencies.

Of the estimated 529,000 maternal deaths in 2000, 95 per cent occurred in Africa and Asia, while only 4 per cent (22,000) occurred in Latin America and the Caribbean, and less than one per cent (2,500) in the more developed regions of the world.

Experience from successful maternal health programmes shows that much of this death and suffering could be avoided if all women had the assistance of a skilled health worker during pregnancy and delivery, and access to emergency medical care when complications arise.

. . . . .
http://www.sdnpbd.org/sdi/international_days/population/2004/introduction.htm

[lvx35]

11. wow. SO many deaths fo preventable reasons.

CNN said 200,000 a year from treatable cancer in the US.

[RamboLiberal]

6. And the way our Congress and many citizens overreacted

Allowing "The Decider" to lead the U.S. in to this friggin war and usurp much of the Constitution!

[pnwmom]

4. In going to war against Iraq, we DID overreact. Massively. n/t

[peacetalksforall]

7. 9-11 was a criminal act. If confident that the killers were who

Ashcroft said they were, there should have been a prosecution, trial, and judgement - JUST LIKE the first WTC bombing. The perpetrators landed in jail.

There wasn't a criminal trial, there wasn't even a criminal investigation. All Cheney would allow is an investigation of our intelligence systems.

This is where we went very wrong. In addition to the slaughter in Iraq, many citizens of the coalition partners were slaughtered. Becauee of an overreaction - how could anyone dare bomb the U.S. - let's help them - especially if they compensate us.

It was serial tragedies of decisions.

[susanna]

8. I pretty much agree with "overreaction" themes.

But then, I loved what FDR said: "we have nothing to fear but fear itself."

I really am not afraid of the so-called Islamo-fascists. I find it odd that the supposed "tough guys" on the right are the ones fear-mongering this crap. The fact is, if I'm killed by a terrorist, I guess the God that knows how many sparrows live had his reasons for my exit. That's the problem I have with the righties; they profess to believe in God, but God has already said, "ONLY I KNOW." They seem to be saying, "Maybe, but..." So, I ask, what kind of FAITH is that?

[OHdem10]

9. The Adm. has TRIVIALIZED 9-11

It has been referenced so much as response to everything--
unfortunately, people do not take it as seriously as
they once did. Some TV Outlets do the same.

[Psephos]

10. How can 3000 US dead in Iraq be a catastrophe, but not 3000 US dead in NY?

3000 US dead in Iraq is a nightmare for the same reason 3000 US dead in New York is.

As I see it, the problem with Prof. Bell's analysis is that it assumes 9/11 is a stand-alone event, without considering it may be an event embedded in a trend. To use mild jargon, his analysis is static, not dynamic, and ignores the key concepts of trend and positive feedback.

Trend, in this case, involves determining whether 9/11 is part of a larger flow of attacks. For example, if a 40-year-old person finds a precancerous mole on his nose, he could say, hmm, that's one precancerous mole per 40 years; I shouldn't expect the next one for at least several more decades. However, that mole may be on the leading edge of a trend due to his 40 years of sun exposure, and now, enough genetic damage has accumulated in his skin cells for many of them to start throwing off skin tumors. Instead of waiting approximately 40 years for the next one, this man may only have to wait 40 weeks...and even less for the one after that.

Notice I'm not saying that 9/11 is definitely the leading edge of a trend, but any statistically valid analysis must, at minimum, consider that hypothesis.

Positive feedback refers to the shaping of future events based upon reactions to current events. For example, if a bully kid demands a weakling kid's lunch money, then static analysis says the weakling kid should hand it over without a fight, because getting beat up is not worth four dollars. However, the weakling's response may very well induce a positive feedback loop, by causing the bully to start targeting the same kid again (because the response is known), or speculating that more egregious attacks (such as stealing his jacket or iPod) will also be comparatively struggle-free. So the true cost of the passive response may be far larger than the single-incident cost.

Again, I'm not saying that this reasoning applies beyond any doubt, but to not consider it is to also forgo any claim to sophisticated statistical analysis.

Peace.

[roseBudd]

16. The relevent point is that so-called "islamo-facists" don't have the infrastructure to destroy the

US. White Supremacists talk about either deporting or killing all African Americans. Yet no one actually believes they have the capacity to.

I see this all the time on the right, "they hate us and they say they want a caliphate"

Yeah right

You're goinmg to end up in a burqua as they will convert or kill all infidels

Yeah right

They will come here and kill us all

Yeah right, will they fly USAirways

[Psephos]

18. Sure, I agree - but that's not what my post was about :-)

I was remarking on the need for dynamic vs. static statistical methods when analyzing large-scale terror events.

Meanwhile, your point is quite valid - although all bets are off if someone sets off a nuclear weapon in a US city.

Peace.

[roseBudd]

24. Sure they could possibly use a dirty bomb but it doesn't compare to the USSR's

capacity to deliver nuclear warheads

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. I totally agree, and it's time someone said it in the mainstream press!

Other countries have suffered far worse.

The way Bush uses it as justification for military aggression and domestic repression, you'd think that no nation had ever lost 3,000 people in a single day before.

Tell that to the countries that were struck by the tsunami. Tell that to the nations of Europe and East Asia, especially the ones that lost 100,000 people in a single night in a World War II bombing raid or 300,000 people in an extended massacre. Tell that to the people of the Congo and Darfur and Bosnia, and anywhere else that ordinary people risk being slaughtered for no reason. Hell, tell it to the Iraqis, who can't even go grocery shopping without risk of being blown up--all thanks to the Bushboy's cynically opportunistic response to 9/11.

Americans are like a bunch of teenagers who are so preoccupied with their zits that they can't sympathize with someone who has leprosy.

[yurbud]

13. Ironic--we wanted to level whole countries after 9/11 but expect Iraqis to thank us for 600K dead

[JPZenger]

14. Bin Laden Wanted the US to Overreact to Unite Muslims Against Us

If Bin Laden's plan has worked as planned, tens of thousands would have died instead of 3,000. He planned simultaneous attacks, which would have meant the second tower would have been fully occupied when hit. He also planned to hit the Capitol apparently with the plane that went down in PA.

Bin Laden wanted a spectacular attack that would generate a huge over-reaction by the US militarily -that would unite the Muslim world against the US. With the help of Colin Powell, the INITIAL US response to 9-11 was very targeted and well-directed using special forces attacks in Afghanistan. Then, a few months later, the neocons took over, and shit happened.

[agincourt]

17. I don't think of it as an over reaction,

just an incredibly stupid sheeple reaction. Reagen built up Islamic extremism in the '80s. The Repig congress was more interested in semen stained dresses and Monica's panties then fighting terrorism in the '90s. Bush was, if not MIHOP or LIHOP, at least criminally negligent in protecting the US, especially with all the foreign intelligence warnings. The GOPig party politicized the tragedy in way that should NEVER be forgiven. Bush went to war against Saddam, who never attacked US soil, but Bin Laden is doing fine in western Pakistan. We should be breaking these pigs legs in the street for wiping their ass with our countries flag, but instead they got their dick sucked until the 2006 election. Appalling.

[vickitulsa]

19. RamboLib, thank you very much for sharing this excellent article

with us! I am so relieved to see a serious piece in the corporate media challenging what the * maladministration has tried so hard to make "common knowledge." That is, the idea that there really is something that can legitimately be called a "post 9-11 world."

Every time I hear that term repeated by anyone, I want to shout from the rooftops that there IS NO "Post 9-11 World"!

As someone who lives smack in the middle of the "heartland," I was shocked (and even depressed -- for a week) when the towers in NY fell. But I can promise you I was not at the time and have not since then been afraid of Islamic terrorists at all.

I recognize that people living in the NYC and DC areas may have experienced a lot of fear on 9-11-01 and may well find it harder to have moved on with their lives free from persistent fear of future terrorist attacks. I am not belittling their experience and the genuine reasons for such anxiety among those folks. It was their trauma.

But I really don't think most of the country lives in such lasting fear -- especially since we have had not one single terrorist attack in the U.S. since then!

I also have figured that the number of dead from Katrina which was "estimated" at somewhere between one and two thousand is probably greatly UNDERstated, for obvious reasons, by the Bu$h government. With no way for us to check on their figures or how they arrived at them, I have suspected it was very likely that as many as 3,000 or more who died in that catastrophe. Yet look at the utter lack of concern this admin has had about doing anything substantial in reaction to what was clearly a much more devastating event overall than 9-11 was....

No, instead, as some here have said, this admin USED 9-11 for their own purposes and have hyped and harped on the dangers of Islamic terrorists constantly ever since then to justify their war ventures for profiteers while keeping the people as scared as they can. Problem for them is, more people every day keep seeing through their monstrous ploy and how they've tricked us and used the terrible suffering of some to do it.

I for one keep protesting every time I encounter someone who refers to a "post 9-11 world," and I offer them my reasons for doing so. In the broader scheme of things, as David Bell implies, the attacks of 9-11 were really not, in and of themselves, the earth-shattering events that Bu$hCo wants us to believe they were.

And I think most Americans do know that.

I'm so very glad to see this discussed openly at long last though!

[sandnsea]

22. Afghanistan wasn't

There was nothing to indicate, at that time, that we wouldn't go in there, clean up the terrorists, and fix the country the way we'd done previously. If we'd done that, and then moved for diplomatic change in the ME, we may well be done with this 'war'. The policy certainly is way wrong and there is a lot of truth in the idea that hysteria has replaced strategy. But was 9/11 really that bad??? What a horrible thing to say, of course it was awful and would have been awful no matter where in th world it happened. I didn't see that quote in the article either.

[frankieT]

25. War against terrorism is a scam

I always thought that, terrorism is a very convenient way for governments to shut down democracy. Sure, terrorism is a horrible thing but it's nothing compared to all the deaths incurred by industrial societies: accidents, diseases, suicides, crimes...