No HOT5 Today

It will return tomorrow.

The U.S. Did Not Overreact to 9/11

Here on the anniversary of 9/11, we are regularly reminded that many people have basically forgotten the event. They've forgotten the reaction and mood of the country at the time, and the horror that gripped most people as they watched the news on television. They've forgotten the complete shutdown of the civilian air transport system and the fear of follow-up attacks. They've forgotten the resolve of most Americans that this time we had to strike back hard against terrorism, instead of just launching a few cruise missiles and going about our business. And they've forgotten the strong consensus that we should stop waiting around to be attacked, and instead eliminate threats before they reached the potential to cause another 9/11.

As the years after 9/11/2001 passed, there has been an ongoing effort to minimize the attack, to pretend that it just wasn't that bad, and to argue that the U.S. overreacted. The contention that the U.S. overreacted to a devastating surprise attack on its greatest city is both idiotic and historically ignorant. Far from overreacting, the U.S. unleashed a limited, measured war in Afghanistan. It even identified elements within Afghanistan that it could work with, rather than holding the entire country collectively responsible for hosting Al Qaeda -- which would have been standard procedure in earlier eras. Even with the desire for vengeance fresh, and with America largely united behind the president, we did not exert anywhere near the full power of the U.S. military. Instead we took great pains to protect the innocent and minimize collateral damage.

And then there was Iraq. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was an open enemy of the U.S. Regime change in Iraq was supported by major figures and presidents from both parties well before 9/11. Before 9/11 we were conducting an aerial blockade of Iraq, and bombing targets in the country on a regular basis. Attacking Iraq was not only not a overreaction to 9/11, it was a reasonable decision based on intelligence at the time, the fact that Iraq was already an enemy of the U.S., and the aforementioned consensus that the U.S. needed to act in order to eliminate threats before it was too late.

Mistakes, bad assumptions, and all the hindsight about whether different strategies should have been pursued, whether or not Iraq could have been contained without war, and the wisdom of nation-building do not equal an overreaction. If the U.S. had reacted in similar fashion to another lethal surprise attack, Pearl Harbor, there would now be millions of dead Afghans and Iraqis, cities burned to ruins, and huge U.S. armies occupying the region. Pakistan might have millions more dead, and might be dismembered and partially occupied. Iranian interference would have been met with overwhelming force. Syria would probably have been bombed and intimidated into complete cooperation. Here at home, security restrictions would be far tighter; the press would be censored; a draft would have been reinstated; Arab-Americans and other predominantly Muslim minorities would be sitting in internment camps. That's what something that might reasonably be called an "overreaction" might look like -- and that's not even considering the possible use of America's nuclear arsenal.

New Ad for Burn a Koran Day

h/t In My Copious Free Time

HOT5 Daily 9/10/2010

1. "Inside America's Mosques" Interesting reading.

Representative Sample: I, along with a team of young American researchers, traveled throughout the country studying U.S. mosques for the book Journey into America: The Challenge of Islam. From fall 2008 until fall 2009 we visited over 75 cities and over 100 of the estimated 1,200 mosques in the United States, some of which are little more than a room or two. And we were reminded that Muslims in America are as diverse as Americans overall. There is no one pattern that can describe them all, and any generalities fail to cover the whole picture.

2. "A New Synagogue in Litchfield?" Jewish synagogue and community center project blocked -- no big deal.

Representative Sample: maybe I missed it, but I haven’t seen the speech in which President Obama defends the Litchfield synagogue in the same way that he defended the Ground Zero mosque. Nor have I seen Nancy Pelosi demanding an investigation of synagogue opponents in the same way that she demanded an investigation of GZ mosque opponents. And will the “human rights activists” and liberal clergymen who have been so fervent in their defense of the mosque project also step up to defend the Litchfield synagogue project? I think we all know the answer.

3. "Questions for Imam Rauf" From a fellow Muslim. Somehow he'll just be dismissed as some sort of Islamic Islamophobe.

Representative Sample: Islamists in "moderate" disguise are still Islamists. In their own more subtle ways, the WTC mosque organizers end up serving the same aims of the separatist and supremacist wings of political Islam. In this epic struggle of the 21st century, we cannot afford to ignore the continuum between nonviolent political Islam and the militancy it ultimately fuels among the jihadists.

4. "Inflicting greater harm judged to be less harmful" When it comes to human perception.

Representative Sample: Joseph Stalin once claimed that a single death was a tragedy, but a million deaths was a statistic. New research from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University validates this sentiment, confirming large-scale tragedies don’t connect with people emotionally in the same way smaller tragedies do.

5. "Am I a Hypocrite?" Liberal atheist at least recognizes that his position on the Koran burning appears hypocritical, something that many other people seem completely oblivious about.

Representative Sample: it suddenly occurred to me that I have supported, and continue to support, lots of other forms of expression that may lead -- indeed, already have led -- to violent retaliation. Not only did I support Salman Rushdie publishing The Satanic Verses, I criticized bookstores that refused to sell it for their cowardice. Likewise for the Danish cartoon controversy. I wholeheartedly supported the publishing of such cartoons and I republished them myself because I thought it was very important to stand with those who were being threatened with violence.

Laughing at Colin Powell

Colin Powell spoke out in favor of the proposed mosque near Ground Zero. I know, what a surprise. But here's what he said,

"The terrorists win if we become terrified and . . . change who we are and what we are," Powell said, as he argued that it is crucial for Americans to remain true to the values that set the country apart from the rest of the world.

Two posts ago I mentioned how liberals like to lecture Americans with exactly this sort of argument, and here's former Republican Colin Powell to provide a handy example. And without appearing to have the slightest clue that he's contradicting himself, he then said this.

Powell also addressed Florida pastor Terry Jones' plans to burn copies of the Koran on Saturday and warned that Jones' plans could put American troops in harm's way. "If we let Islamophobia go across this country, we put General Petraeus in a very, very bad situation,"

Colin Powell is apparently "terrified" of one man burning a Koran. Now it's ok to be afraid and to put aside our values. Leaving aside that "Islamophobia" is a made-up term used primarily to silence any criticism of Islam, one radical, religious nutcase does not indicate anything going "across this country." Powell's comments deserve nothing but derisive laughter.

Must-read from PZ Myers on Koran Burning

PZ Myers is probably one of the best-known atheist bloggers. I appreciate his knowledge of biology and debunking of creationist nonsense, but he's well on the left politically. Other than evolution and atheism, I rarely agree with him. Myers gained some notoriety for publicly desecrating communion wafers, an act similar to Koran burning. I looked through his site earlier, and was surprised that he hadn't found the time to post about the ridiculous overreaction to the planned Koran burning. In fact, I was just about to write a post called, "Where are the Atheists"? Most atheists, who have no problem offending Christians, seem to take a much softer approach -- some might even call it spineless -- with regard to Muslims. But before I wrote my post, I went back to Pharyngula to see if I might have missed a post, and found a new one titled, "Setting the Koran on fire, vs. setting personal liberties on fire." Some excerpts:

I'm something of an expert in the public desecration of sacred objects, and I'm seeing the same madness going on right now with Terry Jones and his plan to burn copies of the Koran that I saw in the response to throwing a cracker in the trash — only amplified to a ludicrous degree. People just aren't getting it; they're so blinded by an inappropriate attachment to magic relics that they're missing the real issues.

AND

The problem isn't the desecrators. The problem is the people who have an unwarranted sense of privilege, that their beliefs wil not be questioned or criticized, ever, by anyone.

AND

I'm looking at this recent episode with Terry Jones — a fellow I don't like at all, and I think he's a fanatical goofball — and I see that the serious problem here isn't Jones at all…it's all the lunatics who are insisting that burning the Koran is a major international catastrophe. 

It's just a frackin' book, people.

The whole thing is an outstanding take down of the hysteria over this issue.

Hypocrite in Chief

As everyone knows, President Obama recently spoke out with regard to the Park51 project,  a project that roughly 70% of America feels is tasteless or offensive and should be moved elsewhere. Here's what he had to say about it.

"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," ... "That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

He later expanded on those remarks, but continued to emphasize the rights of the developers to proceed regardless of public opposition.

But now we have another situation involving the first amendment, with a small religious group wanting to burn a book on their own private property. This action is even more unpopular than the proposed Islamic community center near Ground Zero. But since the president is such a strong supporter of the first amendment naturally he took the same position. Wrong.

I just hope he understands that what he's proposing to do is completely contrary to our values of Americans. That this country has been built on the notions of religious freedom and religious tolerance. And as a very practical matter, as commander of chief of the Armed Forces of the United States I just want him to understand that this stunt that he is talking about pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women in uniform who are in Iraq, who are in Afghanistan. ... it is frustrating. Now, on the other hand, we are a government of laws. And so, we have to abide by those laws. And my understanding is that he can be cited for public burning. But that's the extent of the laws that we have available to us. You know, part of this country's history is people doing destructive or offensive or harmful things. And yet, we still have to make sure that we're following the laws. And that's part of what I love about this country. [emphasis mine]

Where's our valiant defender of the first amendment now? He's bemoaning the fact that our laws inhibit him from taking action to shut down the Koran burning. Now the first amendment is a problem. He mentions citing him for "public burning." Apparently the administration has been searching for ways to suppress the religious freedom and free expression of this church. It's just too bad that the first amendment stands in its way. 

Remember all the times the public has been lectured by liberals like Obama about how we can't let fear of terrorism compromise our rights and freedom? Remember all the talk about "fearmongering," and how if we give in to fear, and compromise our principles Al Qaeda wins? But now one person plans a calculated act designed to offend Muslims, and suddenly fear of their reaction means that the entire force of the government must be directed at intimidating him into changing his mind. It's doing everything possible to figure out how it can get around the first amendment to shut him down. Obama is a gutless hypocrite.