On Monday evening the BBC Radio Five Live’s program “Pods and Blogs” has invited me on the air to discuss the five-year anniversary of the attacks which took place on September 11th, 2001 in NYC, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania. Anyone interested can listen here at 9p.m. EST/6p.m. PST ( I will probably be on ~20 minutes into the program).
The truth is that I don’t yet know what I am going to talk about or what profound statement I can possibly make in my minute of air time. There is just so much that has occurred in these past five years that to draw any kind of grand conclusion or offer a sagacious reflection seems impossible. From a federal government facility I watched (like many of you) my federal government and its citizens get attacked on that day. Later I learned that a friend had perished in New York. If I had to condense all of my thoughts five years later down to a single word it would be…”disappointment.”
On September 11th, 2001 I believe that our nation was handed, hidden beneath the shock, the sadness, and the loss, an opportunity to lead. Our generation was given a chance to become the greatest generation. In the 1940s, faced with the threat of a fascist and racist power bent on world domination, the United States and its men and women rose up to defend much of that world, not only through our arms but through our thoughts and ideas. Our allies admired us because of our spirit and our tenacity. They admired us for our can-doism and they admired us for our morality. That admiration lasted through the Cold War and past the end of communism. On September 11th we showed everyone why America was, decades later, still worthy of that admiration:
A California man identified as Tom Burnett reportedly called his wife and told her that somebody on the plane [United 93] had been stabbed.
“We’re all going to die, but three of us are going to do something,” he told her. “I love you honey…” [Link]
You can wade through all of these interview files for additional reminders of how Americans responded when called upon to lead. Even the President got it right at first:
I can hear you, the rest of the world can hear you and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon. [Link]
However, shortly after is where my disappointment begins. Five years later can it be said that anyone (even our closest allies) really “hears us?” Can it be said that America is admired for how it responded in the years following the attacks? Does anyone feel safer? I am disappointed because we have not honored the memories of those who perished by living up to the examples that they set for us. Sacrifice and inner strength and not blind fury or angry words were the weapons that Americans used on that day.
In her op-ed piece about the five-year anniversary, Peggy Noonan admires the concise last words uttered by many that died that day and notes that “crisis is a great editor.” If that is true then it is a shame that these days we seem to waste so much time with empty rhetoric and actions which divert our nation ever farther from our chance at greatness.
I thought a good place to start reflecting upon the past five years would be to first take a look at where we stand at the present:
A majority of Canadians believe U.S. foreign policy was one of the root causes that led to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, and Quebecers are quicker to criticize the U.S. administration for its international actions than other Canadians, a recent poll suggests.
Those conclusions are found in a newly released poll conducted by Leger Marketing for the Association for Canadian Studies.
The poll suggests that 77 per cent of Quebecers polled primarily blame American foreign policy for the Sept. 11 attacks. The results suggest 57 per cent in Ontario hold a similar view. [Link]
<
p>Within a year our closest strategic ally will have a new leader:
According to a poll released yesterday by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, British support for American leadership in foreign affairs has never been lower — a policy whose poster boy is Tony Blair. This summer, even some of Blair’s Cabinet loyalists were upset when he once more forcefully backed a deeply unpopular Bush policy: refusing to criticize Israel’s strategy or tactics in Lebanon or call for an immediate cease-fire. Blair’s transformation today into official lame duck means all the European leaders who backed the Iraq war — Spain’s Jose Maria Aznar, Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi and Poland’s Leszek Miller — have paid the ultimate political price. [Link]
<
p>This weekend the U.S. military’s chief logistics planner at the time of the attacks revealed that the decision to go to war in Iraq was made very shortly after the correct decision to topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. He also revealed that Rumsfeld and the administration refused to consider the possibility that we would have to stay in Iraq for any length of time.
In 2001, Scheid was a colonel with the Central Command, the unit that oversees U.S. military operations in the Mideast.
On Sept. 10, 2001, he was selected to be the chief of logistics war plans.
On Sept. 11, he said, “life just went to hell.”
That day, Gen. Tommy Franks, the commander of Central Command, told his planners, including Scheid, to “get ready to go to war.”
A day or two later, Rumsfeld was “telling us we were going to war in Afghanistan and to start building the war plan. We were going to go fast.
“Then, just as we were barely into Afghanistan, Rumsfeld came and told us to get ready for Iraq…”“The secretary of defense continued to push on us that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we’re going to take out the regime, and then we’re going to leave,” Scheid said. “We won’t stay.”
Scheid said the planners continued to try “to write what was called Phase 4,” or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like security, stability and reconstruction.
Even if the troops didn’t stay, “at least we have to plan for it,” Scheid said.
“I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that,” Scheid said. “We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today. [Link]
On Friday the Republican-chaired Senate Intelligence Committee revealed as clearly as possible that not only did Saddam have no connection to Al-Qaida, he in fact wanted to hunt down al-Zarqawi himself:
The Senate intelligence committee [this past] Friday said it had found no evidence that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al-Qaida or provided safe harbor to one of its most notorious operatives, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — conclusions contradicting claims by the Bush administration before it invaded Iraq.
In a long-awaited report, the committee determined that the former Iraqi dictator was wary of Al-Qaida, repeatedly rebuffed requests from its leader, Osama bin Laden, for assistance and sought to capture Zarqawi when the deadly terrorist turned up in Baghdad. [Link]
<
p>
And still much of the public, which now more than ever needs to build a greater awareness of events beyond these shores, remains ignorant of basic facts:
Some adults in the United States remain convinced that the former Iraqi president played a role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to three recent public opinion polls. In a survey by Zogby International, 46 per cent of respondents think there is a link between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda plot.
In studies by Opinion Research Corporation released by CNN and CBS News, 43 per cent and 31 per cent of respondents respectively believe Hussein was personally involved in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. [Link]
<
p>
<
p>
Other Americans remain equally oblivious to reality, actually believing that our government was directly involved in the attacks on that day.
The 9/11 commission was tasked with figuring out what went wrong and how to prevent it from ever happening again. Here is their report card which shows how far we had come by 2005. It is only five pages long and every American should be familiar with what it says. Achieving grades of A’s and B’s on all these items would make me feel a lot safer than simply taking the fight to some amorphous enemy that seems to get larger with every bomb we drop on “him.” I have no doubt that it would cost far less as well. The foreign policy section of the report card, which I am sure will be of interest to many SM readers, is particularly insightful.
Five years later I am still waiting for our leaders to lead. I think many of us were up to the challenge of 9/11 but that our resolve has turned to cynicism and frustration. We have been misled and manipulated by the political party in power and uninspired by the other one. I think that musician Neil Young captures it best on his new album:
Lookin’ for a Leader
To bring our country home
Re-unite the red white and blue
Before it turns to stone
Lookin’ for somebody
Young enough to take it on
Clean up the corruption
And make the country strong… [Link]
<
p>
Noonan is right. Crisis is a great editor. With only seconds to think, the heroes of 9/11 made difficult decisions with admirable clarity. Since 9/11 we have let the thought of vengeance and the need to appear tough at all costs supercede the need for more patient and nuanced action. We have also lost the morality that they exemplified. Sending U.S. soldiers to die under the guise of “preserving freedom and our way of life” is easier than fighting for hearts and minds and maintaining the moral high ground. We have hurt ourselves more than we have hurt the terrorists that seek to do us harm. If we lose the “War on Terror” it certainly won’t be at the hands of any terrorists, but slowly by our own (in)actions. At home our civil liberties continue to be eroded. We can’t travel abroad without someone explaining to us how we Americans are ruining the world. Does anyone believe that the “War Against Terrorism” or “The War Against Islamo-Fascism” or whatever we are calling it today can be won by any means other than by winning the hearts and minds of the societies that harbor terrorists? If you consider 9/11 to be the date of the first battle of this war then the body count shows that our side lost ~3000 lives compared to 19. And yet…in almost every way that matters we won that first battle. We won the hearts and mind of the world on that day. They saw Americans die fighting against an amoral and cowardly enemy. They understood then that the idea of America was greater than the idealogy that sought to destroy it. They also believed that we would win. That is no longer true in the eyes of too many around the world.
And what about us in the South Asian American community? We are caught in the middle in many respects. We are as patriotic as any American and yet we are not always seen as such simply because of our appearance. Our thoughts about the conflict are often more nuanced because many of us have seen first hand the conditions which result in a fundamentalist idealogy. We know that weapons alone will do no good. We especially dread the next large attack. We know it will happen eventually. We are as worried about what will happen after the attack.
Five years later all this is going through my head. I am writing this post because I’d like to hear from some of you as well. I doubt that all of our thoughts can be condensed into a minute or two of radio time but perhaps a little group reflection would do us good. Beneath the pessimism I harbor some hope that there may still be some time to set our wrong course right. That won’t happen however, until we all become more engaged and demand more from our leaders. We owe this to everyone who died on that day.
What would the differing immigration bills look like 🙂
bad and worse 🙁
razib_the_atheist,
1) It highly dubious whether Iraq is better off today than it was before the sanctions. Iraq was once a near-First world country, with women doctors in high heels driving $40,000 cars, and is now a Fourth world nation, at best, with an increasing religious fundamentalism forcing Burqa use, an economy in shambles, and oil profits, the lifeline of the Iraqi economy, siphoned by foreign companies. This decline is not due to any one nation’s fault, nor attributable to any one point in time. The decline was spread over many years, partly due to Hussein’s mismanagement of the economy, partly due to Washington helping an arms race by selling expensive weapons that Baghdad could ill-afford and squandered in skirmishes with Tehran and later Kuwait, partly (large part) due to Dessert Shield/Storm and ensuing sanctions, partly due to jihadis Tehran kept sending into Iraq to destabilize it, and so on. Note, I am comparing Iraq on purely economic grounds, which can at least be quantified. People like to talk about human-right abuses and so forth, but these are difficult to gauge – America was considered a prosperous, exemplary nation while it permitted slavery. The economic power a nation is a far easier, and often just as accurate, gauge of prosperity.
2) The sanctions did not create terrorists, but it did eliminate a useful diversion. Terrorists were diverted into fighting Hussein, a “bad” Muslim by most clerics’ perceptions. Since the sanctions, clerics’ view of Hussein dramatically changed. While they remained skeptical of Hussein, they found it far more prudent to tacitly permit Hussein’s power and consolidate their efforts on a narrower agenda. Effectively, we increased the proportion of jihadis targetting us.
3) Agreed. I have no qualms against imperial ambition or capitalist greed, so long as the Govt. expressly states that those are our foreign policy and the people are able to vote on pursuing these without being tricked into thinking that we’re “saving the world”. Ethics or Money. People must develop a spine and decide, and not pretend to have both. I’m fine with either route, so long as we’re honest about our route.
4) The 9/11 attacks were very unique, and do deserve special attention. That said, let’s not be naive on how it is unique. It is not unique due to its scale, it is not unique due to the loss of life, it is not unique due its demoralizing effect, it is not unique due to its unconventionality, it is not unique due to its economic impact. It is unique in one regard and one regard alone: it was an attack in the mainland of the most powerful nation in history. Such an act is incomprehesible.
the problem, razib, is that we live in a culture where no death is acceptable and the decision makers are always suspect. If one person dies, it’s due to the incompetence of the decision maker. That also loads the die. It’s easy to write up statistical scenarios – it’s much harder to make the decisions when you are the one accountable for them.
the salience of deaths are conditioned by psychological and social expectations on what is OK or not. hardly anyone is killed by sharks, but shark deaths make a lot of news.
now, the key is this: i am aware that the psychological terror and political ramifications of terror attacks are important, and i am aware that the “natural” impulse is to strike out. certainly i talked to enough people personally who took visceral satisfaction in the iraq invasion as “payback” for 9/11.
1) one would hope that a politician, as a representative of the people would do the right thing and no cave in to public bloodlust. that is why we’re a republic, not a democracy. alicibiades expedition to sicily and the abandonment of fabian tactics during the punic wars
2) that being said, our nation is pretty demcoratic in some superficial dimensions. i am pretty resigned to foreign adventures for the near term, my only personal goal is to support verbally and politically those who would undermine them. even democratic nations get tired of adventures retreat.
I like how an Indian engineer who is on the top 0.001% of his country comes to the US and compares himself to the guy at the Burger King drive through window. Also lets all remember that its a ridiculously high burden to place on Americans when someone from country xyz wants the American to know as much about the country xyz as the person from xyz knows about America. Almost everybody around the world knows a lot about America but Americans cannot be expected to have the same level of knowledge about all countries in the world.
MD: The US is not any safer with Saddam gone. I think some of the cities in the Sunni triangle have become laboratories for anti-west jihad/insurgency against Western armies similar to how Afghanistan gave birth to a whole generation of unemployed anti-soviet jihadis. If you factor in the Shia resurgence, Iran now poses a much bigger strategic threat to the US interests in that area than Iraq ever did. With a Shia crescent looming from Qom to Beriut, Middle East has never been more unstable. An unstable Middle East means more problems for the US.
It highly dubious whether Iraq is better off today than it was before the sanctions. Iraq was once a near-First world country, with women doctors in high heels driving $40,000 cars,
Thats patently ridiculous. Please produce the numbers which would give the slightest credence to your theory that Iraq had first world standards before the sanctions.
amj,
numbers? proof by assertion is the best! 🙂
The sad thing about our response to 9-11 is that our leaders haven’t chosen to fund or inspire the next Manhattan or Apollo project- alternatives to fossil fuels. We call on 18 year old boys to fight the war on terror, many of whom come home maimed physically and emotionally, and we still go about our day to day lives utterly disconnected from the damage being wrought on us and on them. There are better options to the hundreds of billions and thousands of lives lost in Iraq. I do happen to think winning hearts and minds is possible- but it would have to involve a more even-handed approach to the arab-israeli conflict, less dependence on foreign oil to disconnect our business interests in the Middle East, and inspiring Americans to think more globally- as the reigning superpower and the richest country, our blessing becomes a curse if all we concern ourselves with is the buying of plasma tv’s and SUVs.
The previous comment was rather ridiculous, but this is a blog, not a peer-reviewed journal.
al_mujahid_for_debauchery,
Yes, Iraq was truly a First world country, just as Argentina was. Developed nations are not purely the realm of the G7.[1][2]
If you see photos of 1970s Iraq and Iraq today, the contrast is stark.
but this is a blog, not a peer-reviewed journal
most of the numbers that people respond with take about 15-30 seconds to find via notations in wikipedia or CIA factbook. 80% of the time i respond with numbers it seems to just check a basic fact from CIA factbook that people are very wrong about (i usually know they’re wrong, which is why i check, but i offer a cite because people are often too stupid to know they’re wrong). now, if people can’t recall the facts at hand, they shouldn’t go around asserting. that’s just my opinion. i don’t know if you run a blog, but i can tell you that i spend more than 15-30 seconds double checking facts which i’m less than 95% sure of if i ues them in a blog post. comments aren’t blog posts of course, but if people go to the length of making assertions of fact, as opposed to interpretative opinions, they taking 10 seconds to check seems a courtesy they can afford if they are going to take up character space.
in any case, i don’t know any peer-reviewed journal that is typified by 15-30 second checks of basic facts.
p.s. sometimes i’m mischevious on this blog and will admit to asserting stuff i know is totally false using an alternative persona. these are always without citation. i can attest that it takes way less than 10 seconds to make stuff up that people want to believe is true because it agrees with their ideological bias.
Yes, Iraq was truly a First world country, just as Argentina was.
it took me 15 seconds to find copious references where you could see graphically its GDP parity with first world nations (e.g., uk, usa, australia) in the first half of the 20th century. i already knew this was true. i couldn’t find anything this specific in regards to iraq after a minute. your citations don’t show the GDP numbers from what i can see.
copious references to argentina’s GDP i mean.
And, you will notice, that a great deal of the argument in the comments section is not simply based on the safety issue, but on the morality of removing a dictator and the resulting chaos and destruction. So, to that argument, I say, there was a lot of destruction and killing before. You can’t ignore it. How many terrorists were the sanctions regime creating?
I am tired of hearing countless 9 second Fox sound bites of Iraq being better off without Saddam for the Iraqis. Lets say if Saddam was killing 35,000 of his enemies in Iraq every year, so is our war justified because our invasion for toppling Saddam only resulted in the death of 25,000 Iraqis?
I donÂ’t believe so because utilitarian number comparison of dead bodies is not a justification for intentional killing of people (or where there is an absolute expectancy that people will die). The US is not intentionally killing people in the traditional sense but the civil war is a result of the invasion and there was always an absolute expectancy in sane circles that the invasion would result in a large number of deaths.
Our ethical morality should not allow us to do a cold number/utility comparison when it comes to taking lives. ThatÂ’s why we quarantine a person/neighborhood/city and not bomb them if there is a contagious virus in the community. That is why most people would not be okay with bombing and killing 40,000 Zimbabweans even though toppling Mugabe could save more lives.
Maybe a time will come when our morality would have evolved to a level where humanitarian intervention by well meaning agents on an internal strife in a country would be considered ethical. It would be akin to how we feel now about genocides. We havenÂ’t reached that point yet and for that I am glad.
The first portion of the previous comment was from MD:
And, you will notice, that a great deal of the argument in the comments section is not simply based on the safety issue, but on the morality of removing a dictator and the resulting chaos and destruction. So, to that argument, I say, there was a lot of destruction and killing before. You can’t ignore it. How many terrorists were the sanctions regime creating?
razib_the_atheist,
You probably meant GDP per-capita, not GDP since GDP by itself, without knowing the population, is not a measure of prosperity. Iraq had a higher per-capita than Spain (which today has a per-capita of $25,000) [1][2][3]
And honestly, you can do your own research. This is a comment board, not a thesis defense. I’ve been polite enough in providing 5 links, one of which was to a google search with 3,000 articles all citing that Iraq was a developed nation before the sanctions. If you continue to believe that Iraq was a pathetic 3rd world nation until we the benevolent Americans confer them some semblance of electricity and indoor plumbing, then don’t bother asking for more evidence from me. Even the whithouse acknowledges that Iraq was once a developed nation, so to say that it is “better today” is myopic.
“… and, and, and then sic semper tyrannis called razib a ‘poopie head’ and and like razib then started spitting spitballs at us and he wouldn’t stop and then we all started crying and and …”
For those a bit too lazy to read the cited article, here is an excerpt from whitehouse.gov: “Under Saddam Hussein’s regime, Iraqis’ standard of living deteriorated rapidly. In nominal terms, Iraq’s per capita income had dropped from $3,800 in 1980 (higher than Spain at the time) to $715 in 2002 (lower than Angola)”[1]
And, of course, those unfamiliar with 1980 will laugh and say “oh, but $3,800 is nothing!”. Wrong, adjust for inflation. 1980 $3,800 is the equivalent of 2006 $10,000 adjusted for inflation,[2] and that’s ignoring any real-growth of the GDP that all developed nations undergo. Spain, for instance, having a lower per-capita than Iraq in 1980 and growing at a steady pace, has a per-capita today of $25,000 [3] which translates into a real-growth rate of 3.5% per year (2.5 GDP improvement over 26 years, solve for R in: 2.5 = (1+R/100)^26 ). “Real growth”, fyi, is economic nomenclature for “growth minus inflation rate”, which roughly translates into how much “wealthier” you are, and 3.5% is considered ‘mediocre’ growth (China’s has been 10.5% and India’s 7.5%) So, had Iraq continued to grow on average at 3.5% per year, as it was healthily surpassing before Hussein, its economy, then (1980) wealther than Spain’s, would today (2006) easily be put in the category of any European nation, $25,000+ per capita per year. For those who still don’t understand that Iraq was a wealthy nation, here is a 1970-2000 chart of the wealthiest 20 nations. You can see that the wealthiest countries in the world had per-capita of roughly $10,000 in 1980, in 2000 USD terms, which with real-growth, is about $26,500 today.
I hope this elaboration helps extinguish any lingering, factless opinion that Iraq was never a developed nation.
I suggest you take a look at what the booklet ‘al-Jihad’ has to say. Read about it in The Terrorist’s Nightmare blog
It is 11th already.. i still remember when I watch that horrid footage with shock and numb.. First thought that came to my mind was a world war… what we are going through though is nothing sort of a world war, with the enemy at all front, no?
sic,
$3,8000 is plausible to me. that isn’t first world (i don’t consider spain first world in 1980 for example). i never said that iraq is better off or worse off, in fact have stated i don’t care. but saying that a nation is “first world” means something. mexico has a gdp per capita of $10,000. this isn’t anything to sneeze at, but, it isn’t first world. i am to understand that argentina had a gdp per capita higher than britain in 1900, so the analogy seems targeted to implying that iraq was a first rank nation in terms of affluence, and i don’t think that was ever true, though it was reasonably prosperous. i actually agree with your general point (though like i said, i don’t really care much), but like AMJ i don’t think hyperbole (i.e., using terms like “first world”) is really helpfull.
Mexico has a GDP per capita of $10,000 (CIA FACTBOOK) and no one calls it a first world nation. Spain has made tremendous progress in the last couple of decades so comparison with Spain is misleading. Its like saying Pakistan had a similar GDP per capita to South Korea in the late sixties which even though true is highly misleading considering the fact that South Korea is an economic success story today.
al_mujahid_for_debauchery,
Mexico did NOT have a GDP per capita of (2006USD) $10,000 in 1980. Giving the CIA Factbook’s figure for Mexico’s per capita in 2006 is meaningless. We’re talking about 1980. And Spain’s 3.5% real-growth per year is not “tremendous progress”, it is an expected real-growth rate. At 3.5% real-growth Iraq’s per-capita in 2006 would be $25,000.
razib_the_atheist,
Calling Iraq a developed nation isn’t hyperbole. There are thousands of authors who have written articles on Iraq was once developed.[1]
sic, i don’t care about the term “developed,” though i could argue that too. as i said in my last comment, i objected to the accuracy of “first world.” wiki says tacitly that $15 K is the boundary for the term, and that sounds about right to me.
al_mujahid_for_debauchery/razib_the_atheist,
Both of you sneering at (2000USD) $10,000 in 1980 don’t realize that richest 20 nations were earning BELOW (2000USD) $10,000 in 1970. Clearly neither of you visited the cite I gave, so I’ll give it again. It graphs the per-capita, in 2000USD, of the richest 20 nations from 1970 to 2000. Yes, (2000USD) $10,000 is nothing today, with most developed nations earning (2000USD) $25,000 per capita, but in 1970 most First world nations could not offer that. You must keep the 3.5% real-growth in mind. That real-growth rate extrapolates from the 1980 Iraq a figure of (2005USD) $25,000 per capita in present-day Iraq. Most Europeans do not earn that kind of salary.
razib,
“wiki says tacitly that $15 K is the boundary for the term, and that sounds about right to me.”
That’s a terrible definition. Even assuming that you meant (2005USD) $15,000, no nation could then be called First world in 1970?!
dude, this is a bitchy little argument, but look, you seem to be playing shell games now :0)
1) the graph you liked too seems to show that “high income” countries in 1980 had an average gdp per capita of 10 K, so iraq was not “high income” then.
2) the only reason we brought up 10 K is that you stated that that is what 3.8 K in 1980 dollars was equivalent, so comparing 10 K today to 10 K in 1970 seems really weird (and why go back to 1970?). the point is to place iraq at a given time in the context of other nations.
3) i think using the 1980 as a baseline for growth is problematic, my hunch is that it is due to the high oil prices of the 1980s. this chart shows GDP dropped by -4.3% between 1970-1990. the iran-iraq war didn’t help i’m sure, but the general trend from what i understand for oil rich arab countries was a drop in per capita gdp as the price of oil dropped.
4) yes, sanctions were bad for iraq. i’m not disputing that.
That’s a terrible definition. Even assuming that you meant (2005USD) $15,000, no nation could then be called First world in 1970?!
i’m assuming normalization. this is why i brought up argentina, one could make a strong case for it being first world because it was one of the wealthiest countries in the world in 1900, and, its gdp per capita was higher than first rank nations like the uk.
but in any case, there isn’t a strict definition of “first world.” your use of the term could be totally kosher in your own conception of the term, but i’m 99% certain that most people who hear the word “first world” do not think of the arab world reaping the high oil prices of the 1970s, let alone what seems to have been a middle income country.
your overall point is that sanctions were terrible for iraq. and i agree. but now i’m mostly drawn to what i perceive is your tendency to start playing shell games with the metrics & comparisons 🙂
razib,
Singapore is considered First world as well, it doesn’t have to be UK-centric. Also bear in mind that the $10,000 figure you’re quotting from the CIA Factbook about Mexico is purchasing power parity. That’s a subjective conversion that ignores the FX rate. Use the proper per-capita value.
Mexico GDP (purchasing power parity): $1.067 trillion (2005 est.) GDP (official exchange rate): $693 billion (2005 est.) GDP – real growth rate: 3% (2005 est.) GDP – per capita (PPP): $10,000 (2005 est.) GDP – per capita: $6,500 (extrapolated from GDP – official exchange rate)
Mexico today has a GDP per capita of (2005USD) $6,500. Iraq then had a GDP per capita of (2005USD) $10,000, and with a 3% real-growth rate would today have a GDP per capita of $25,000.
QED
razib,
“2) the only reason we brought up 10 K is that you stated that that is what 3.8 K in 1980 dollars was equivalent, so comparing 10 K today to 10 K in 1970 “
I was using 1970 because everyone here thinks that (2000USD) $10,000 per capita isn’t First world. The graph that I gave you clearly shows that in 1970 the First world was making below (1970USD) $2,700 per capita, which is the equivalent of (2000USD) $10,000. (The first graph charts per-capita of First world nations in “present-time USD”, and the second graph charts per-capita of First world nations in “year 2000 USD”). Iraq in 1980 was already somewhat on the decline, if I had its 1970 per-capita it would have looked even better.
Calling math that you don’t wish to follow shell-games is itself your own shell-game.
i found this nice HTML friendly chart of gdp per capita from 1976-2004. everyone can make their own judgements by inspection of the tables for various nations. saudi arabia has gone from being a zeroth world nation to a 2nd world one over the past generation. can’t say i’m crying over that.
My gawd! Everyone’s gotta be right, right? Which leads to defenisve behaviour – can’t admit we’re wrong, when we’re wrong, and gawd forbid that anyone gasp apologize! But that’s another rant for another day….
Y’all are well on the way to becoming bickering uncle-ji’s!! 😉 Or future presidents.
brown.
911: Much ado about nothing, honestly.
The 9/11 targetted the financial hub to demonstrate that Unscruplous Big Business is the Real threat to world peace.That does not seem obvious at first because of the Bin Laden hype that was built up to coverup the usual practices of keeping others under control. On this Anniversary atleast Big Business (the War Machine especially) should take note that injustice or exploitation cannot be sustained with might.
First of all, may I take this opportunity to express my sympathy towards any commenters/readers on SM who lost friends, family or acquaintances on 9/11. This must be a particularly difficult time of year for you, even more so considering the extensive media coverage currently underway due to the 5-year anniversary. The same also applies to anyone here who may have been caught up in the attacks themselves and managed to escape.
Abhi,
Excellent article. I wish you the very best of luck during your interview on Radio Five Live today. I’m very impressed; onwards and upwards.
Sunny from Pickled Politics has written a superb article related to 9/11 and I recommend everyone to read it. Amongst many other points, I thought the following in particular stood out:
“Bush cannot peace or curb extremism in the Middle East because he continues to exacerbate it through his own folly.
Osama Bin Laden knows this which is why he is happy to remind everyone of 9/11. Bush not only continues to make him popular but does his work for him. The civil liberties and “our freedom” that keep getting cited as what Bin Laden hates are being encroached upon by our own political leaders. Bin Laden is probably jumping with joy.”
With regards to the changes within Western society during the past 5 years — both internally and with regards to foreign military actions — I don’t know if what’s happened has been by accident or by design (possibly a combination of the two) with regards to OBLÂ’s gameplan, but I suspect that, as Sunny alluded to, this is exactly what OBL wanted and everyone has fallen right into his trap. He wanted to create havoc within Western society (and elsewhere, particularly in the non-Muslim world). He also wanted to trick the US and its allies into an ideological and physical confrontation with what he regards as being “the Islamic world”. He has succeeded in many ways, although not all and, at present, it’s not (yet) as bad as it could be. This has been achieved as a result of a combination of various factors which we are generally all aware of and which would involve an extensive off-topic discussion in itself. ItÂ’s also worth bearing in mind that one of his late-90s statements (which was replayed on The Path to 9/11 last night) included the assertion that “there will be no negotiation until America converts to Islam”.
We are dealing with someone who is extremely intelligent, has a very good understanding of human behaviour, knows precisely how to pull the strings and manipulate events and individuals according to his agenda, and is quite diabolically brilliant. However, he is not infallible, and his own character failings both distort his judgement and may well be the cause of his own ruin, both in the short-term and from the judgement of history. And, of course, a backlash against him within the global Ummah could still happen on a wide scale as a result of his violation of Islamic principles for warfare and the fact that Islam’s name is being dragged through the mud due to the actions of his group and its supporters & wellwishers worldwide.
The basic problem is OBLÂ’s assertion of divine justification for his actions. I remember a report in the British media a couple of weeks ago (apologies, I can’t recall if it was in one of the major newspapers or if it was on the news) that said the reason OBL is doing all this is because he is terrified of God punishing him if he does not do it. He is sadly mistaken, although he obviously does not realise this as a result of whatever religious interpretation he is following and/or whatever self-deceptive mental gymnastics he is performing to rationalise his own behaviour and worldview. I would hope for his sake that heÂ’s not consciously and knowingly twisting Islam for his own ends; apart from the probable long-term consequences of such actions re: the Afterlife (which IÂ’m sure most right-thinking religious people would agree with, regardless of which faith you believe in), hypocrisy in religious matters (“false piety”) is something which I really do find disgusting. We are of course assuming that he does not undergo some kind of Aurangzeb-type Road-to-Damascus experience where he “sees the light”, for which there is of course still time.
However, the current actions of the West do not do much to facilitate this. I canÂ’t put it better than Red SnapperÂ’s posts #5 & 6. You* cannot violate your own high-minded principles and ideals which supposedly represent the foundation of your society, while claiming to be acting in its name and, indeed, while claiming to be defending it. I draw no moral equivalence between Western foreign actions and the behaviour of the jihadis, but by deliberately or inadvertently dropping to the nefarious level of the latter (in some aspects, certainly not most), you hand them ammunition to justify their own original negative assertions about you, and you undermine your own moral credibility in the eyes of your supporters (locally and globally) and neutral parties who could be swayed either way.
It does not have to be this way. There are historical precedents for this, as long-term readers of SM will know (IÂ’ve commented on it frequently before), and there are ways to achieve victory by winning hearts & minds while simultaneously defending yourself and other innocent parties by using impeccably ethical means. One must adhere to this — regardless of the provocation and the depths to which oneÂ’s opponents stoop — in order to ensure you maintain the moral high ground, and also to ensure the other party does not “trick” you into extreme behaviour which would allegedly vindicate their cause and win them more supporters against you.
(“*You”: I’m using this word in the general sense, as in “one cannot violate one’s principles etc”, not in an accusatory sense towards “you” the American people).
The strategy needs to be changed, and I am sure that I am very much stating the obvious here. However, it of course depends on whether your basic agenda is “survival and victory at any costs, and by using any means necessary”, or if you are prepared to risk defeat but with your honour intact and knowing that you did “the right thing for the right reasons”.
Tough choice. I know which one I prefer, but then I admire certain historical and religious role models who set the bar very high indeed. My views on Guru Gobind Singh in particular are well established here on SM.
In any case, I think large numbers of people across the world will have the American people in their thoughts today, especially those of us whose own nations have suffered related jihadi attacks during the past few years and where the danger is still very much present. Let us hope that 9/11 is not superseded by an even worse attack on US soil, and that genuine clarity and understanding arises within the hearts and minds of those on all sides of the conflict.
Let us always maintain rising optimism, and wish goodwill to all men. Even towards those who unjustifiably oppose us, against whom we must defend ourselves forcefully but proportionately and ethically, and simultaneously hope that they will gain the mental and spiritual clarity (and the humility) to understand the errors of their actions.
In the meantime, my sincere sympathies once again to the United States and especially to those of you who live in New York.
Razib, can I just ask you, aside from the minutes you save on non-prayer time thanks to that atheism, how on earth do you find the time to come up with the stuff you do?
Shot Abhi for a beautifully written post and a flash BBC radio spot! 🙂 Btw where I live shot is a way of saying ‘well done’, I did not pull a crazed terrorist macacca and actually shoot anyone..:P
I’m all for global justice and I’ve read as much Arundhati Roy as a girl can to actually replace Zadie Smith with her as my number one Lit GirlCrush…but I think it is important for the victims and their families to let 9/11 be 9/11 and remember those who perished in a tragic and cowardly act of terrorism.
Abhi’s pointed out how the tragedy has been misused and manipulated to justify Afghanistan and Iraq, but looking back on it I feel it’s just as important not to use it to talk about the GDP of Mexico, the evils of globalisation and other such things. Yes, it’s been a good springboard to get us thinking about other injustices around the world, but it’s also important to take a moment and remember. Maybe if people could just ‘be’ handle a few more minutes of silence the state of the world wouldn’t be as disappointing as it is today.
OUR WAR Solidarity Our first duty is to stand together against bin Ladenism.
BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS Monday, September 11, 2006 12:01 a.m.
Never mind where I was standing or what I was doing this time five years ago. (Because really, what could be less pertinent?) Except that I do remember wondering, with apparent irrelevance, how soon I would be hearing one familiar cliché. And that I do remember hearing, with annoyance, one other observation that I believe started the whole post-9/11 epoch on the wrong foot.
The cliché, from which we have been generally but not completely spared, was the one about American “loss of innocence.” Nobody, or nobody serious, thought that this store-bought phrase would quite rise to the occasion of the incineration of downtown Manhattan and 3,000 of its workers. It might have done for the Kennedy assassination or Watergate, but partly for that very reason it was redundant or pathetic by mid-day on September 11, 2001. Indeed, I believe that the expression, with its concomitant naïve self-regard, may have become superseded for all time. If so, good. The beginning of wisdom is to recognize that the United States was assaulted for what it really is, and what it understands as the center of modernity, and not for its unworldliness.
But here I am, writing that it was “the United States” that was assaulted. And there was the president, and most of the media, speaking about “an attack on America.” True as this was and is, it is not quite the truth. I deliberately declined, for example, an invitation to attend a memorial for the many hundreds of my fellow-Englishmen who had perished in the inferno. I could have done the same if I was Armenian or Zanzibari–more than 80 nationalities could count their dead on that day. It would have been far better if President Bush had characterized the atrocity as an attack on civilization itself, and it would be preferable if we observed the anniversary in the same spirit.
In the past five years, I have either registered or witnessed or protested at or simply “observed” the following:
(1) The reopening of a restaurant in Bali, where several dozen Australian holidaymakers and many Indonesian civilians had earlier been torn to shreds. (2) The explosion of a bomb at a Tube station in London which is regularly used by two of my children. (3) The murder of a senior Shiite cleric outside his place of worship in Iraq. (4) The attempt to destroy the Danish economy–and to torch Danish embassies and civilians–as a consequence of the publication of a few caricatures in the Danish press. (5) The murder of the U.N. envoy to Baghdad: a heroic Brazilian named Sergio Vieira de Mello, as vengeance (according to his murderers) for his role in shepherding East Timor to independence. (6) The near-successful attempt to blow up the Indian parliament in New Delhi, and two successful attempts to disrupt the commerce and society of Mumbai. (7) The destruction of the Golden Dome in Samara: a place of aesthetic as well as devotional importance. (8) The bombing of ancient synagogues in Tunisia, Turkey and Morocco. (9) The evisceration in the street of a Dutch filmmaker, Theo van Gogh, and the lethal threats that drove his Somali-born colleague, a duly elected member of the Dutch parliament, into hiding and then exile. (10) The ritual slaughter on video of a Jewish reporter for this newspaper.
This list is not exhaustive or in any special order, and it does not include any of the depredations undertaken by the votaries of the Iranian version of Islamic fundamentalism. I shall just say that I have stood, alone or in company, with Hindus, Jews, Shiites and secularists (my own non-sectarian group) in the face of a cult of death that worships suicide and exalts murder and desecration. This has not dimmed, for me, the importance of what happened in New York and Washington and Pennsylvania. But it has made me slightly bored with those who continue to wonder, fruitlessly so far, in what fashion “we” should commemorate it.
The time for commemoration lies very far in the future. War memorials are erected when the war is won. At the moment, anyone who insists on the primacy of September 11, 2001, is very likely to be accused–not just overseas but in this country also–of making or at least of implying a “partisan” point. I debate with the “antiwar” types almost every day, either in print or on the air or on the podium, and I can tell you that they have been “war-weary” ever since the sun first set on the wreckage of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and on the noble debris of United Airlines 93. These clever critics are waiting, some of them gleefully, for the moment that is not far off: the moment when the number of American casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq will match or exceed the number of civilians of all nationalities who were slaughtered five years ago today. But to the bored, cynical neutrals, it also comes naturally to say that it is “the war” that has taken, and is taking, the lives of tens of thousands of other civilians. In other words, homicidal nihilism is produced only by the resistance to it! If these hacks were honest, and conceded the simple truth that it is the forces of the Taliban and of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia that are conducting a Saturnalia of murder and destruction, they would have to hide their faces and admit that they were not “antiwar” at all.
One must have a blunt answer to the banal chat-show and op-ed question: What have we learned? (The answer ought not to be that we have learned how to bully and harass citizens who try to take shampoo on flights on which they have lawfully booked passage. Yet incompetent collective punishment of the innocent, and absurd color-coding of the “threat level,” is the way in which most Americans actually experience the “war on terror.”) Anyone who lost their “innocence” on September 11 was too naïve by far, or too stupid to begin with. On that day, we learned what we ought to have known already, which is that clerical fanaticism means to fight a war which can only have one victor. Afghans, Kurds, Kashmiris, Timorese and many others could have told us this from experience, and for nothing (and did warn us, especially in the person of Ahmad Shah Massoud, leader of Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance). Does anyone suppose that an ideology that slaughters and enslaves them will ever be amenable to “us”? The first duty, therefore, is one of solidarity with bin-Ladenism’s other victims and targets, from India to Kurdistan.
The second point makes me queasy, but cannot be ducked. “We”–and our allies–simply have to become more ruthless and more experienced. An unspoken advantage of the current awful strife in Iraq and Afghanistan is that it is training tens of thousands of our young officers and soldiers to fight on the worst imaginable terrain, and gradually to learn how to confront, infiltrate, “turn,” isolate and kill the worst imaginable enemy. These are faculties that we shall be needing in the future. It is a shame that we have to expend our talent in this way, but it was far worse five years and one day ago, when the enemy knew that there was a war in progress, and was giggling at how easy the attacks would be, and “we” did not even know that hostilities had commenced. Come to think of it, perhaps we were a bit “innocent” after all. Mr. Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is “Thomas Jefferson: Author of America” (HarperCollins, 2006).
I’ve linked to this in the News tab but thought I should mention it here too: Someone on Pickled Politics just linked to an excellent article discussing the history behind the radicalisation of British Muslims in recent times, especially amongst those of Pakistani descent. Iraq and Afghanistan have been aggravating factors behind the homegrown jihadi threat post-9/11, but they’re not the root cause — “the wave has been building for a long time”.
Article here. Please do read it when you have some spare time.
My deepest love and respect to my American brothers and sisters who mourn the loss of family and friends five years ago. I hope that despite the emotional hurricane we confront every time this day comes around, we’ll remember that some of the greatest evils in the world were brought down by others who showed us that there is a better way than war and violence.
(From Sojomail)
September 11: 100th Anniversary of Gandhi’s First Public Protest by Tobias Winright
On Sept. 11 Americans will remember the fifth anniversary of the nightmarish terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Probably unbeknownst to many, however, is that Sept. 11 also marks, according to the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence, the 100th anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi’s first public act of civil disobedience.
Gandhi’s first public protest back on Sept. 11, 1906, in Johannesburg, South Africa, and it may be appropriate for us to remember this benchmark event, especially since much of what Gandhi was protesting has striking parallels in contemporary U.S. society.
As a young lawyer from India, Gandhi experienced racial discrimination at the hands of white South Africans. After landing there and getting a first-class ticket on a train to Pretoria, he was later told by authorities during a stop in Maritzburg to move, since he was “colored,” to the third-class compartment instead. When Gandhi refused to budge, a constable threw him and his luggage out. It was winter, and Gandhi spent the night shivering in an unlit room at the train station.
This, though, was no isolated incident. In fact, it was symptomatic of wider, systemic racism and xenophobia, as evident a few years later with the passing of the Asiatic Registration Act, which required Indians living in the Transvaal region of South Africa to be registered, fingerprinted, and given certificates that they had to carry at all times proving their residency. According to Gandhi, there were dehumanizing and intrusive consequences of this legislation: “Failure to apply would be … an offense … for which the defaulter could be fined, sent to prison, or even deported … . The certificate must be produced before any police officer … . Failure … to produce the certificate would be … an offence for which the defaulter could be fined or sent to prison. Even a person walking on public thoroughfares could be required to produce his certificate. Police officers could enter private houses in order to inspect certificates.”
A century later, where there continues to be fear of the other, violence begetting retaliatory violence, and the erosion of civil rights by government, Christians who care about justice and peace should revisit the writings and example of Gandhi, as the “American Gandhi” Martin Luther King Jr., did nearly a half a century ago.
Thanks to the current administration, America has lost a lot of friends and the tremendous outpouring of goodwill has given way to a feeling of betrayal. The world did look up to America to take the perpretators of 9/11 to task, not just for its own sake, but for the whole world. Perhaps a change in the dispensation in the next elections (or an unexpected windfall as in the capture/killing of Bin Laden) will lead to better times. Iraq was a senseless war that shows that the administration, at best, did not have its priorities right.
Having said that, I am still moved by the fortitude and composure that a majority of Americans displayed that day and of course, by those who put their lives on the line. The least one can do is to show respect to those who were murdered in cold blood.
MD @ 90: “Like performing an ‘unnecessary’ surgery because we think the risk of not acting is too great.”
What medical analogies WOT has wrought! “Unnecessary’ surgery, “birth pangs” etc etc.
Razib @ 96: “norwegian women can’t want around certain sections of olso without male escorts for fear of being raped by immigrant men
And as the urban knowledge (legends?) went, this has been the case with many American inner-cities/ ghettos way before the influx of those Spanish/Arabic/Timbuktoo speaking immigrant masses – the first thing I was told when I arrived at the downtown campus that I attend is not to walk around at night.
That said, since I love my “free speech”, I am very well aware of the f**kedup-ness of some of these “immigrant” (even one or two generations into “naturalization”) men who will not hesitate to kill anyone (eg. Theo van Gogh) who mocks their beliefs/gods.
Razib, can I just ask you, aside from the minutes you save on non-prayer time thanks to that atheism, how on earth do you find the time to come up with the stuff you do?
this has been asked multiple times. as someone with a full time day job, and several freelance jobs, computer related, and 2 blogs (and sometimes contributor to a 3rd), as well as a relationship and an uncontrollable reading habit, i do find the time.
1) i don’t sleep as much as the average person, those hours add up i’m sure.
2) let me be frank and state that i already know a lot of things. i am not “coming up with stuff” as much as simply finding citations which will confirm my claims to those who are skeptical. that takes a lot less time than actually coming up with new data.
3) this is the only blog i comment on aside from my own.
Its difficult to find the right combination of mourning for the loss of that tragic day and frustration for what has happened in the days that followed. The horror of 9/11 has shaped and will continue to shape national and international laws for.. well, forever.
On September 16th, the newly established Muslim Bar Association of New York will discuss some of those changes in US laws.
They don’t yet have a website but I posted details on my blog.
I know this belongs in the events tab and I tried to post it… but i goofed and its not there.
i don’t sleep as much as the average person, those hours add up i’m sure.
Interesting. How many hours do you sleep at night? Also how many hours do other mutineers sleep at night? I get in around 5 and I would like to cut back to 3-4.
amj,
5 is about right. the thing is that i often have a patter ofr 3-4 days of 4 hours a night, and then i ‘catch up’ with an 8 hour day. and wouldn’t we all like to cut back? i hear that ppl sleep less as they age….
Thoughtful post Abhi.
To those on the right and left who like think the global salafist movement is a ‘reaction’, whether they simply don’t like our freedoms or a reaction to American policies, I would say you’re already behind the curve.
The global salafists have a vision and strategy that is long term, patient, and deadly. They are masters of psychological operations and propoganda. They are brilliant strategists who have the ability to disrupt the status quo. They are not reactive in nature, but far more proactive in this conflict.
The west and democratic governments are a disadvantage – we have myopic strategy/vision/discontinuity in the political establishment. What can one do? A long term vision to counter the global salafist insurgency has to be underpinned by education, intelligent use of economic assets and the military. The use of the right tool at the right place. Military action may be the first tool to be used, or never, but it all depends on the sitauation. Politicans who are lawyer heavy need schooling (or we need more politicans) who understand conflict beyond their domestic agendas.
Salafists will keep coming for the time being. How tactics have played out over the last few years, atleast for me, is a mixed bag. Some good, some bad, some unclear. IMHO, I don’t think we’ve lost the ‘moral highground’, maybe the appearance of it and much credit has to go to how the enemies have been able to frame their argument and to the government for being so inept in the psychological warfare game. In the grand scheme of things we have made mistakes, but we still maintain the moral highground (I’m not out to change peoples opinions, so, if you believe otherwise, that is OK). We’ve lost the initiative in defining ourselves, the initiative in creating conditions optimal for a winning strategy, we’ve lost the initiative in taking control of the dynamic/momentum.
We as a society are reactive in our responses. Zawahiri and his gang have been around for 3 decades now killing, regrouping, and gaining and they aren’t going to stop or go away anytime soon.
Regardless of opinions on whether one thinks the USA is good/bad/ugly, I would appeal that people work to be more constructive in ensuring that it is the USA and liberal republics like it that wind up on the winning side. The alternatives of letting global salafists have their piece of the world power cake isn’t very appealing.
Actually, I am struggling with your sentence: “And what about us in the South Asian American community?” While I actively seek the unification of the community in matters of cultural interest, I would hesitate to lump Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Indians, Nepalese and Bhutanese when it comes to political discourse. The sole reason being that each community (and segments thereof) faces its own challenges. Thus, the challenges faced by the Pakistani community in England (for instance) is rather different from the Sri Lankan community there. Please do not misunderstand my drive for “distinct-ness” as an effort to divide. It is difficult to solve problems if we lump these communities together, at least in this particular discussion.
For example, studies like this, this, and this segment these communities differently in order to understand them better. (There are significant differences in these communities, especially when it comes to women).
I do know that Indians and Pakistanis have had different experiences post 9/11, especially when it comes to getting student visas, visitor visas (for parents), or H-1Bs (either for the first time or for renewals) and suchlike, based on anecdotes from Indian and Pakistani friends. I do think we need to segment the populations better in order to understand the post 9/11 effect on these communities.
Great!!! All the best for that.
Gujudude, sound analysis in #147. IMO – One way of verifying your [accurate] claim that America has not relinquished the moral high ground yet, is to compare the relative numbers of Visa applications, made by the Ummah, who wish to immgrate to the west.