Have the military responses to 9/11 been equal to their costs?

Reflecting on 9/11 includes thinking about eight years of foreign policy. What concerns me is the massive commitment we have made in two foreign wars and the uncertain accomplishments we have to show for it.

In Afghanistan and then Iraq we invested tremendous human and economic resources. We may in the long run succeed in giving Iraq the opportunity to create a functioning democracy, but the cost was high.

In Afghanistan, it is still not clear that a positive outcome can be achieved, although the committment of sufficient resources may also bring results that were not possible previously.

During President Ronald Reagan’s eight years in office, he responded to various threats without engaging in a substantial ground war. When he chose to react with force to Libyan terrorism, he bombed Moamar Gadaffi’s compound. Gadaffi survived, although immediate family members were killed in the attack. One military act, with small risk to our forces and cost to our economy, backed up by economic sanctions. We did not attempt to replace a regime or transform a society.

Since then, Gadaffi has renounced terrorism and sought to comply with international norms. Gradually, sanctions have been removed and Libya has begun its return to the community of nations.

President Reagan did commit tremendous national resources to oppose the Soviet Union, the major Cold War threat. But despite “Star Wars’” failings, the U.S. investment in missile-sheild technology fostered American economic and technological superiority, which ultimately forced the Soviet Union to change. Not all former soviet states are success stories today, but many are, and the 30-year threat of nuclear war subsided.

Since 9/11, the loudest complaints about our use of force have been over justification for our invasion of Iraq. Those who believe that military action was appropriate focus on security to be gained from defeating the enemy and establishing stable government. What about the security to be lost, if we demonstrate that we are unable to accomplish our mission or unwilling to face new threats (Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs), because we have already given too much?

Our military proves itself every day in discipline, bravery, organization and tactics. But do our political leaders have the strategic wisdom to use force so that we achieve the most for the least expenditure of precious resources?

Read more Care2 perspectives on the anniversary of that traumatic day:

Hijacked Civil Liberties: The Legacy of 9/11

The Impact of Terrorism on the Environment

On the Eve of the 9/11 Anniversary, Veterans Lobby to Stop Global Warming

Watch your Back, I’m a Terrorist

The Heroic Dogs of 9/11

9/11, the DOMA Effect, at Victim 0001

Read more: afghanistan, iraq, politics, war

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dvids/3311897743/sizes/m/in/photostream/

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Past Member .

8:05PM PDT on Sep 18, 2009

...I have the "Third Jihad" CD...you bet your butt some-body should or is payin' attenrion...hope so, keep it simple, yes these souls want to bring the "imam" and the "MAHDI" back, this is the now iranians...and machkmood Amadinejahds's idea, this man is a nut case and feels that there is a 'well' somewhere in his perifferal visioun to where the only way to bring peace to the whole world is thru arrival of the "Madi" here is the ultimate destruction of the earth as we know it....

send a green star

Ronald N.

10:20AM PDT on Sep 15, 2009

No one ever mentions the 9/11 Truth, but that's OK! The truth about war, especially with the US government, goes back a long way. We had the Monroe Doctrine, in which the US kept European forces outside of the Western Hemispheric realm. We had the sinking of the Battleship Maine in which we invaded Cuba and claimed swaths of Spanish Territory, and the "Manifest Destiny" never looked so good. As America became sophisticated we used "economic assassins" (as well as real assassins) to disrupt these countries ecomomies or simply sent out propagandists to discredit leaders who were't cooperative to the western corporations. But it looks like the US is back to it's old ways. Simply make an excuse that the Americans will buy, and then stage a pre-emptive strike. .......and the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air!

Vernon H.

8:01AM PDT on Sep 14, 2009

War is seldom a wise choice . . . Republicans told us "IF VIETNAM FALLS, COMMUNISM WILL SWEEP THRU THE REGION - LAOS, CAMBODIA, THAILAND WILL GO RED . . ."
WE LOST THAT WAR . . . and the area is peaceful NOW . . . Is it possible that the Vietnamese were like Americans in 1776 - desiring to be free ?

Brian S.

6:05AM PDT on Sep 14, 2009

I have not noticed the at one time prevalent term, "cost benefit analysis", since the very early Nineties. No need to wonder why.
B.

Shrub T.

4:15PM PDT on Sep 13, 2009

Was an additional ~5000 American lives, ~35,000 wounded and maimed for life, over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi lives, one of the places of the beginning of civilization (Iraq) destroyed, over 1 trillion dollars spent on nothing worth it? Of course it was, to the industrial military complex, Haliburton , Blackwater, etc. etc.

This country is NOT a democracy. It is a corporate oligarchy and Obama is just its most recent whore. He essentially has continued the Shrubs policies and may be the weakest leader this country has ever had.

All we need is another Republican regime and you can put a fork in this once proud country.

Subhash J.

8:46AM PDT on Sep 13, 2009

I have been in uniform for 36 years and believe that military is unncessary but my statement comes with a baggage - I ask the question, "Are bullies necessary ??"

Bullying in international relations has many facets; some indulge in bullying with might while others do it through manipulation. Intervention in Iraq, based on a the premise of Iraq's nuclear pursuits and support to Osama's ambitions which could not be supported by any sustainable evidence, has caused consternation in American minds. The decision to withdraw was taken by the current administration, which perhaps would not have been done had Sen McCain won, but after unnecessary loss of so many lives and such tremendous cost to US economy.

Afghanistan is another story - I wonder, however, if we have understood politics of the region correctly. While Pakistan has emerged as the nucleus of international terror, US, perhaps because of need for bases, pours in billions into that failed state which money has been used to put up a facade of combating terrorism despite many open or secret deals that the administration has made with the Al Qaeda and Taliban.

My observation is liable to being misread because I am an Indian but that should not discourage me from expressing my views on the subject.

May no more lives be lost in futility while no bullies are allowed to go scot free.

heather g.

11:40PM PDT on Sep 12, 2009

Do yourselves a favour and read Ahmed Rashid.

Mark B.

2:47PM PDT on Sep 12, 2009

Nice story, and great point Bernard.

My personal response, and it may be dismissed because of my peacenik qualities, is that no military response is equal to the costs. The cost are perceived. The onus is on the perceiver to forgive. If we're always in reaction, we'll never understand the position of the other, and no communication is possible. Is their anger unprovoked? How can we resolve this and prevent it from happening again without understanding the situation?

Bernard C.

11:19AM PDT on Sep 12, 2009

Somehow, my post got clipped at the end.

I include the last segment here:

As a result, we've got two very upset parties: the customer who is so upset that she won't stop to listen to the driver; the driver because he can neither comprehend the customer's insults nor defend his process.

What's missing? Information. Communication.

I relate this story because it reflects a lot of the events of 9/11. We did not have communication. The CIA knew of possible terror groups - and plots - in the country, but did not tell the law enforcement authorities.

We also still believe the terrorists' anger is unprovoked.

We still do not have all the data on 9/11. How, then can we 'jump to conclusions'?

11:14AM PDT on Sep 12, 2009

We react by what we know.

An irate customer calls the sandwich shop. "Why is that #$%$## man just sitting in his car outside my apartment building?"

The delivery man is in his car, attempting to call the customer to ascertain the bell to ring at the door. In the car, it's a lot easier to read the information on the delivery ticket and to use the phone without juggling it with a food parcel at a locked door. This is a common practice he frequently uses when the customer resides in a college dormitory and must come to the lobby to get his order.

His phone rings, on 'call waiting'. It is the manager at the sandwich shop. "The customer is mad because you're just sitting in the car. She's waiting for you in the lobby and can clearly see you where you're parked."

The delivery man goes to the door. The customer lambastes the delivery man, berating him because she told them at the shop that she'd be waiting in the lobby.

Huh?

"I was trying to call you."

"I didn't answer my phone because it would expend too much of my minutes." Yet, the customer called the sandwich shop.

What's missing?

Communication. The 'shop' didn't convey the information to the delivery man. The customer didn't answer her phone. He had every justification to attempt contact with the customer without having to ring all the doorbells.

As a result, we've got two very upset parties: the customer who is so upset that she won't stop to listen to the driver; the driver because