4 ms·

Well, hold on there. Think about the comparison: The 9/11 attacks DID force a nation into an actual, real war (two, actually, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and three

by mhaas12 14y ago

Well, hold on there. Think about the comparison: The 9/11 attacks DID force a nation into an actual, real war (two, actually, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and three if you want to count the generic "War on Terror" that was stepped up dramatically after the attack). The war in Afghanistan has become the longest in United States history, and those wars together HAVE clearly helped set in motion a series of events that will dictate the balance of power in the Middle East for a generation to come, from the deposition and removal of dictators by force to the Arab Spring to the ongoing civil war in Syria. Though there was no contiguous threat in the Middle East to rival Nazi Germany, the Middle East was and is still characterized by a number of oppressive dictatorships. Did post-9/11 have the same economic effects for the US as the post-WWII era? No, but that's not really the effect of any particular difference between the events that precipitated WWII and the wars of the last decade. And, if anything, the post-9/11 landscape HAS seen a dramatic shift in the global balance of power, specifically in challenges to US supremacy and an internal reconsideration of how we project the power we do have. The point to be made here, which I think backs up the whole "digital attack as next Pearl Harbor" argument, is that unconventional warfare is the new conventional warfare. We're less likely to see a direct military challenge along the lines of Pearl Harbor, and much more likely to see indirect challenges to US supremacy through digital or terrorist attacks. There are a lot of parallels to be drawn here, and you made many of them yourself.

EliRivers 14y ago
"The 9/11 attacks DID force a nation into an actual, real war (two, actually, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and three if you want to count the generic "War on Terror" that was stepped up dramatically after the attack). " The US was not forced into those wars. Iraq posed no threat to the US. Afghanistan posed no threat to the US. Pearl Harbour was an act of war by a nation; Japan had serious intent to dominate the Pacific and become the regional economic and military power, and was prepared to do serious damage to the US in order to achieve those aims. 9/11 was an act of terrorism by non-national actors. Iraq and Afghanistan were no threat; the US was not pushed into those wars. The US chose them.
- mhaas12 14y ago
  Fine, if you want to be nit-picky about the necessity of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, you're more than welcome. But either way, it's abundantly clear that the 9/11 attacks precipitated both of those wars. There is simply no way the neoconservatives could have convinced Congress of the need to invade Afghanistan or Iraq without the 9/11 attacks. Pearl Harbor may have forced our hand more clearly, so to speak, but both attacks were deep provocations. You can separate out the intent of the attacks if you want to be precise--Japan's to establish military domination in the Pacific, and Al Qaeda's simply to wreak havoc, or what have you--but in broader terms each represented a physical challenge to the United States' influence over particular spheres. And besides, the point that's trying to be made here is exactly that: There may not be any more "Pearl Harbors," if you want to define Pearl Harbor as a military attack by a sovereign nation. But if you want to define "Pearl Harbors" as serious, potentially dangerous attacks against the US, they are more likely these days to be of a terroristic or digital nature. You're missing the forest through the trees, my friend.
  - EliRivers 14y ago
    Nit-picky about the necessity? Two countries were invaded without posing any threat to the US! "Pearl Harbor may have forced our hand more clearly, so to speak, but both attacks were deep provocations." What exactly was 9/11 a provocation to do? Most of the people involved were already dead, and they weren't state actors - they were private citizens. What exactly was that a provocation for the US to do? "each represented a physical challenge to the United States' influence over particular spheres." One represented a challenge to physically and economically dominate the Pacific for the foreseeable future. One represented a challenge to the structural integrity of some buildings in New York. The scale, effect and consequences are so fantastically different that I genuinely struggle to understand how they can be seen in principle as the same thing. "But if you want to define "Pearl Harbors" as serious, potentially dangerous attacks against the US" By this definition, 9/11, which was not a serious, potentially dangerous attack against the US, was not a Pearl Harbour. It was a criminal act that killed a lot of people and caused a lot of damage. It was not a serious threat to the US.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

by mhaas12 14y ago

EliRivers 14y ago

"The 9/11 attacks DID force a nation into an actual, real war (two, actually, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and three if you want to count the generic "War on Terror" that was stepped up dramatically after the attack). " The US was not forced into those wars. Iraq posed no threat to the US. Afghanistan posed no threat to the US. Pearl Harbour was an act of war by a nation; Japan had serious intent to dominate the Pacific and become the regional economic and military power, and was prepared to do serious damage to the US in order to achieve those aims. 9/11 was an act of terrorism by non-national actors. Iraq and Afghanistan were no threat; the US was not pushed into those wars. The US chose them.

mhaas12 14y ago
Fine, if you want to be nit-picky about the necessity of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, you're more than welcome. But either way, it's abundantly clear that the 9/11 attacks precipitated both of those wars. There is simply no way the neoconservatives could have convinced Congress of the need to invade Afghanistan or Iraq without the 9/11 attacks. Pearl Harbor may have forced our hand more clearly, so to speak, but both attacks were deep provocations. You can separate out the intent of the attacks if you want to be precise--Japan's to establish military domination in the Pacific, and Al Qaeda's simply to wreak havoc, or what have you--but in broader terms each represented a physical challenge to the United States' influence over particular spheres. And besides, the point that's trying to be made here is exactly that: There may not be any more "Pearl Harbors," if you want to define Pearl Harbor as a military attack by a sovereign nation. But if you want to define "Pearl Harbors" as serious, potentially dangerous attacks against the US, they are more likely these days to be of a terroristic or digital nature. You're missing the forest through the trees, my friend.
- EliRivers 14y ago
  Nit-picky about the necessity? Two countries were invaded without posing any threat to the US! "Pearl Harbor may have forced our hand more clearly, so to speak, but both attacks were deep provocations." What exactly was 9/11 a provocation to do? Most of the people involved were already dead, and they weren't state actors - they were private citizens. What exactly was that a provocation for the US to do? "each represented a physical challenge to the United States' influence over particular spheres." One represented a challenge to physically and economically dominate the Pacific for the foreseeable future. One represented a challenge to the structural integrity of some buildings in New York. The scale, effect and consequences are so fantastically different that I genuinely struggle to understand how they can be seen in principle as the same thing. "But if you want to define "Pearl Harbors" as serious, potentially dangerous attacks against the US" By this definition, 9/11, which was not a serious, potentially dangerous attack against the US, was not a Pearl Harbour. It was a criminal act that killed a lot of people and caused a lot of damage. It was not a serious threat to the US.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]