4 ms·

It's very hard for anyone who wasn't fully aware in the months following 9-11 to understand just how much support there was for both wars. - American flags fly

by apo 8y ago

It's very hard for anyone who wasn't fully aware in the months following 9-11 to understand just how much support there was for both wars. - American flags flying everywhere. - Bumper stickers everywhere. - Americans demanding that "something be done" everywhere. - Nonstop media barrage favoring both wars. - Utter lack of skepticism and rush to believe whatever was being put out by the Administration. - Unshakable faith that the military would make everything right. As a dissenter, I was afraid to voice my opinions (retribution, being labeled a traitor) and felt utterly helpless to change anything about the direction things were headed. It's one thing to look back and wonder how we ended up in such a mess. It's another thing to see the conviction on the faces of nearly every person you talk with that the war would be over within a few weeks and a military response was the right course. From what I've read about the early history of US involvement in Vietnam, my experience is far from unique. That part about the war being over within a few weeks in particular seems to repeat itself with disturbing regularity: the Civil War, WWI, Vietnam, Gulf Wars, Afghanistan.

mikeash 8y ago
I agree about Afghanistan, but both wars? There was a ton of opposition to Iraq. Not enough, but a lot.
- mindslight 8y ago
  Of course there was a bunch of opposition. But IMHO it was contained to people who were willing to be "political", and then only in our social enclaves. The "average person" was somewhere between tacit acceptance and virtue signaling by putting "support the troops" stickers on their car - a great example of dog whistle politics. Of course [0], promulgating that feeling of the "average person" is precisely one of the ways propaganda works. [0] in retrospect for me personally.
wrs 8y ago
It’s also hard at this point to remember the sympathy that poured in from around the world. The US got a free pass to do nearly anything in the days following 9/11. Instead of doing something useful with that leverage, we betrayed that global support by doing something monumentally stupid and irrelevant, invading Iraq — made even more stupid by having no realistic plan for the aftermath. All of which was probably according to plan (or even better than expected) as far as Bin Laden was concerned.
- bla2 8y ago
  I was in continental Europe at the time and the sentiment here was "they're going to do something stupid" and far from a free pass.
  - wrs 8y ago
    What I mean is, if the US had decided to do something that seemed sensible, even if it was outside the usual bounds of behavior, I think most people would have looked the other way. Indeed, we did do something stupid, but we did even that with a coalition of other countries. More importantly, I like to think other countries would have signed on to something constructive quickly as well. Wasted opportunity.
    - consumer451 8y ago
      > More importantly, I like to think other countries would have signed on to something constructive quickly as well. Wasted opportunity. Personal anecdote: I was in a tiny town in Portugal during 9/11. In the following days, I read all of the available papers and saw that even China was ready to share intel with the USA. Random Portuguese people offered me a place to stay while my country was "a war zone." The outpouring of global support was unprecedented. Meanwhile, I called my younger brother who was normally well informed, was attending a very liberal university, and yet was worried about ME! All he knew about was all of "the anti-American sentiment" around the world. That was the day I truly understood the power of the reactionary idiocy of US media. The USA could have used 9/11 to really start A New American Century, but the morons in charge were truly just morons. They were all part of a think tank named The Project for a New American Century, yet they let that opportunity pass them by. This was the moment that I understood the idiocy of neo-cons. When future historians analyze the end of the American era, this will truly be the turning point. Note: I have been careful to avoid being political on HN, but this topic deserves no less. I will never forget.
- ilaksh 8y ago
  Look at the think tank documents. The invasions _were_ useful to America and America's friends. They had been planned for years as part of ongoing campaigns that go back tens if not hundreds of years if you consider the historical lineage of the American empire going all the way back to the Crusades. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166/amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-goi...
java_script 8y ago
Look how patriotic Democrats (and I don't have to mention, #resist Republicans) get all of a sudden when Trump seems a bit too friendly to North Korea or Russia. Or the echoes of "We have to do something!" that popped up about Syria. It seems for the political class its literally impossible to learn anything. Or that they don't actually regret Iraq, it's just in vogue to do so.
InclinedPlane 8y ago
What astounds me is just how wrong some of the "intelligence" and reporting about al qaeda in Afghanistan was, and how that fact hasn't been addressed to this day. Officials went on the news saying that there were these huge bunkers in the mountains filled with all kinds of crazy shit. And ridiculous numbers of soldiers hiding out. None of that was real, the reality was a small handful of forces hanging out in completely unimproved rugged terrain. But no correction was issued, no critique of the government officials who perpetrated these ridiculous claims happened, we've learned nothing.
biztos 8y ago
I remember a lot of grassroots opposition to the invasion of Iraq. But then I was in San Francisco at the time. Also worth noting most of the Democratic Party supported the Iraq invasion, as did the New York Times. The "establishment" was firmly behind that war until it started to fail.
qubax 8y ago
> - Nonstop media barrage favoring both wars. This is the cause of your top 3 points. When the propaganda machine is going full force, it's hard be the dissenting voice. When the editorial board of the washingtonpost says that there is "irrefutable" evidence of iraqi wmd and their involvement in 9/11, it's hard for skeptics and honest people to respond without being attacked. After all, the washingpost is one of the papers of record. They certainly wouldn't lie ( or so we are told ). >- Utter lack of skepticism and rush to believe whatever was being put out by the Administration. There were skeptics. The "news" ( both the left and the right ) branded them traitors. Hell an entire nation and our oldest ally ( france ) was mercilessly caricatured and attacked. ( Remember freedom fries and surrender monkeys )? It's standard practice. The media riles up the public, silences the opposition and off we go to another illegal war. We fall for it every single time.

by apo 8y ago

mikeash 8y ago

I agree about Afghanistan, but both wars? There was a ton of opposition to Iraq. Not enough, but a lot.

mindslight 8y ago
Of course there was a bunch of opposition. But IMHO it was contained to people who were willing to be "political", and then only in our social enclaves. The "average person" was somewhere between tacit acceptance and virtue signaling by putting "support the troops" stickers on their car - a great example of dog whistle politics. Of course [0], promulgating that feeling of the "average person" is precisely one of the ways propaganda works. [0] in retrospect for me personally.

wrs 8y ago

It’s also hard at this point to remember the sympathy that poured in from around the world. The US got a free pass to do nearly anything in the days following 9/11. Instead of doing something useful with that leverage, we betrayed that global support by doing something monumentally stupid and irrelevant, invading Iraq — made even more stupid by having no realistic plan for the aftermath. All of which was probably according to plan (or even better than expected) as far as Bin Laden was concerned.

bla2 8y ago
I was in continental Europe at the time and the sentiment here was "they're going to do something stupid" and far from a free pass.
- wrs 8y ago
  What I mean is, if the US had decided to do something that seemed sensible, even if it was outside the usual bounds of behavior, I think most people would have looked the other way. Indeed, we did do something stupid, but we did even that with a coalition of other countries. More importantly, I like to think other countries would have signed on to something constructive quickly as well. Wasted opportunity.
  - consumer451 8y ago
    > More importantly, I like to think other countries would have signed on to something constructive quickly as well. Wasted opportunity. Personal anecdote: I was in a tiny town in Portugal during 9/11. In the following days, I read all of the available papers and saw that even China was ready to share intel with the USA. Random Portuguese people offered me a place to stay while my country was "a war zone." The outpouring of global support was unprecedented. Meanwhile, I called my younger brother who was normally well informed, was attending a very liberal university, and yet was worried about ME! All he knew about was all of "the anti-American sentiment" around the world. That was the day I truly understood the power of the reactionary idiocy of US media. The USA could have used 9/11 to really start A New American Century, but the morons in charge were truly just morons. They were all part of a think tank named The Project for a New American Century, yet they let that opportunity pass them by. This was the moment that I understood the idiocy of neo-cons. When future historians analyze the end of the American era, this will truly be the turning point. Note: I have been careful to avoid being political on HN, but this topic deserves no less. I will never forget.
ilaksh 8y ago
Look at the think tank documents. The invasions _were_ useful to America and America's friends. They had been planned for years as part of ongoing campaigns that go back tens if not hundreds of years if you consider the historical lineage of the American empire going all the way back to the Crusades. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166/amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-goi...

java_script 8y ago

Look how patriotic Democrats (and I don't have to mention, #resist Republicans) get all of a sudden when Trump seems a bit too friendly to North Korea or Russia. Or the echoes of "We have to do something!" that popped up about Syria. It seems for the political class its literally impossible to learn anything. Or that they don't actually regret Iraq, it's just in vogue to do so.

InclinedPlane 8y ago

What astounds me is just how wrong some of the "intelligence" and reporting about al qaeda in Afghanistan was, and how that fact hasn't been addressed to this day. Officials went on the news saying that there were these huge bunkers in the mountains filled with all kinds of crazy shit. And ridiculous numbers of soldiers hiding out. None of that was real, the reality was a small handful of forces hanging out in completely unimproved rugged terrain. But no correction was issued, no critique of the government officials who perpetrated these ridiculous claims happened, we've learned nothing.

biztos 8y ago

I remember a lot of grassroots opposition to the invasion of Iraq. But then I was in San Francisco at the time. Also worth noting most of the Democratic Party supported the Iraq invasion, as did the New York Times. The "establishment" was firmly behind that war until it started to fail.

qubax 8y ago

> - Nonstop media barrage favoring both wars. This is the cause of your top 3 points. When the propaganda machine is going full force, it's hard be the dissenting voice. When the editorial board of the washingtonpost says that there is "irrefutable" evidence of iraqi wmd and their involvement in 9/11, it's hard for skeptics and honest people to respond without being attacked. After all, the washingpost is one of the papers of record. They certainly wouldn't lie ( or so we are told ). >- Utter lack of skepticism and rush to believe whatever was being put out by the Administration. There were skeptics. The "news" ( both the left and the right ) branded them traitors. Hell an entire nation and our oldest ally ( france ) was mercilessly caricatured and attacked. ( Remember freedom fries and surrender monkeys )? It's standard practice. The media riles up the public, silences the opposition and off we go to another illegal war. We fall for it every single time.