Posted on 09/12/2019 3:00:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
It's now been nearly a full generation since Sept. 11, 2001. There are people currently serving in the U.S. military who weren't born when that act of evil took place -- and the military still has thousands of troops in Afghanistan, the home base of the Taliban-supported al Qaida attack on the United States that took nearly 3,000 American lives.
With time comes forgetfulness. The same period of time has now elapsed since Sept. 11 that elapsed between the end of World War I (1918) and the German re-occupation of the Rhineland in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles (1936). Believing that World War I had ended all war, the Allied powers did nothing. That same year, Germany concluded its Axis alliance with Italy, as well as its Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan. Less than three years later, the world would be at war.
Forgetfulness is easy, because immediate costs are painful and steep. American foreign policy nearly always vacillates between two poles: isolationism and reactive interventionism. The American people (correctly) don't like the consequences of isolationism -- increased attacks on America and her allies, maximization of influence by our enemies -- but we also dislike (correctly) the consequences of maintaining a global military presence. It was easy to tear into the Clinton administration's weakness on defense in the aftermath of the Cold War, but there was almost no political cost in it for Clinton at the time. The sepia glow of media coverage regarding Barack Obama hasn't been darkened by his single-minded quest to minimize American influence around the world. CARTOONS | Robert Ariail View Cartoon
But every so often, we're reminded that the world is filled with enemies.
We were reminded of that unfortunate fact this week when President Trump withdrew an apparently secret invitation to the Taliban to visit Camp David. The Taliban was, is and will remain an Islamic terror group; it has continuously sought the murder of American soldiers and citizens for two decades. Why would the Trump administration think it a good idea to sign an agreement with radicals who seek to overthrow the administration of Afghanistan, support terrorism and despise the United States? Do members of the administration truly believe that any agreement signed by the Taliban will be binding?
The answer, of course, is no. That's why the talks fell apart, according to The New York Times -- a response from inside the administration in the aftermath of a terror attack on American soldiers this week, a recognition of the obvious.
The problem, of course, is that there are no easy solutions when it comes to foreign policy in the worst parts of the world. Everyone of good heart wants American soldiers out of Afghanistan and home. But how many Americans are willing to risk the increase in terrorism likely to follow such a withdrawal?
So long as we remember 9/11, the answer will be: very few.
Now, perhaps we should withdraw from Afghanistan. Perhaps the withdrawal is worth the risk. But American history isn't replete with circumstances in which precipitous withdrawal is followed by peace and security.
It's now been nearly a full generation since Sept. 11, 2001. There are people currently serving in the U.S. military who weren't born when that act of evil took place -- and the military still has thousands of troops in Afghanistan, the home base of the Taliban-supported al Qaida attack on the United States that took nearly 3,000 American lives.
With time comes forgetfulness. The same period of time has now elapsed since Sept. 11 that elapsed between the end of World War I (1918) and the German re-occupation of the Rhineland in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles (1936). Believing that World War I had ended all war, the Allied powers did nothing. That same year, Germany concluded its Axis alliance with Italy, as well as its Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan. Less than three years later, the world would be at war.
Forgetfulness is easy, because immediate costs are painful and steep. American foreign policy nearly always vacillates between two poles: isolationism and reactive interventionism. The American people (correctly) don't like the consequences of isolationism -- increased attacks on America and her allies, maximization of influence by our enemies -- but we also dislike (correctly) the consequences of maintaining a global military presence. It was easy to tear into the Clinton administration's weakness on defense in the aftermath of the Cold War, but there was almost no political cost in it for Clinton at the time. The sepia glow of media coverage regarding Barack Obama hasn't been darkened by his single-minded quest to minimize American influence around the world.
But every so often, we're reminded that the world is filled with enemies.
We were reminded of that unfortunate fact this week when President Trump withdrew an apparently secret invitation to the Taliban to visit Camp David. The Taliban was, is and will remain an Islamic terror group; it has continuously sought the murder of American soldiers and citizens for two decades. Why would the Trump administration think it a good idea to sign an agreement with radicals who seek to overthrow the administration of Afghanistan, support terrorism and despise the United States? Do members of the administration truly believe that any agreement signed by the Taliban will be binding?
The answer, of course, is no. That's why the talks fell apart, according to The New York Times -- a response from inside the administration in the aftermath of a terror attack on American soldiers this week, a recognition of the obvious.
The problem, of course, is that there are no easy solutions when it comes to foreign policy in the worst parts of the world. Everyone of good heart wants American soldiers out of Afghanistan and home. But how many Americans are willing to risk the increase in terrorism likely to follow such a withdrawal?
So long as we remember 9/11, the answer will be: very few.
Now, perhaps we should withdraw from Afghanistan. Perhaps the withdrawal is worth the risk. But American history isn't replete with circumstances in which precipitous withdrawal is followed by peace and security.
All of which means that American troops are likely to remain in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future. Few politicians will be bold enough to simply state that truth. After all, when John McCain said as much in 2008, he was roundly mocked by Barack Obama -- the same Obama who escalated the war in Afghanistan and retained thousands of troops there, despite promising withdrawal repeatedly. But our politicians should be brave enough to recognize that a weaker America on the world stage means a more vulnerable America at home. If we didn't learn that lesson on 9/11, we're bound to repeat it.
But every so often, we're reminded that the world is filled with enemies.
We were reminded of that unfortunate fact this week when President Trump withdrew an apparently secret invitation to the Taliban to visit Camp David. The Taliban was, is and will remain an Islamic terror group; it has continuously sought the murder of American soldiers and citizens for two decades. Why would the Trump administration think it a good idea to sign an agreement with radicals who seek to overthrow the administration of Afghanistan, support terrorism and despise the United States? Do members of the administration truly believe that any agreement signed by the Taliban will be binding?
The answer, of course, is no. That's why the talks fell apart, according to The New York Times -- a response from inside the administration in the aftermath of a terror attack on American soldiers this week, a recognition of the obvious.
The problem, of course, is that there are no easy solutions when it comes to foreign policy in the worst parts of the world. Everyone of good heart wants American soldiers out of Afghanistan and home. But how many Americans are willing to risk the increase in terrorism likely to follow such a withdrawal?
So long as we remember 9/11, the answer will be: very few.
Now, perhaps we should withdraw from Afghanistan. Perhaps the withdrawal is worth the risk. But American history isn't replete with circumstances in which precipitous withdrawal is followed by peace and security.
All of which means that American troops are likely to remain in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future. Few politicians will be bold enough to simply state that truth. After all, when John McCain said as much in 2008, he was roundly mocked by Barack Obama -- the same Obama who escalated the war in Afghanistan and retained thousands of troops there, despite promising withdrawal repeatedly. But our politicians should be brave enough to recognize that a weaker America on the world stage means a more vulnerable America at home. If we didn't learn that lesson on 9/11, we're bound to repeat it.
At least the Soviets understood that EVERYBODY in Afghanistan (even if they’re temporarily fighting on your side) are enemies.
...and it's not ‘radical’ Islam, it's just Islam. One of Trump's greatest acts after being re-elected would be to take on Islam. Have open discussions and debates discussing what it means to truly be a Muslim and call it out for the anti-freedom scourge that it is. Muslims are breeding like rabbits. The sooner the confrontation, the better.
Which heroic gentleman and what did he do?
The gentleman who took on that Rep. Omar yesterday in the 9/11 ceremony.
At least Trump is fighting back.
Never forget... sadly, America never learned anything from what took place on 9/11.
Just look at what has taken place since 9/11 and where we are now as a nation concerning the threat of Islam and Muslim terrorists within our midst.
After all the Kumbaiya, flowery speaches, and “memorial services” were over, Islam and the socialist/communist left in and outside of America began a concerted, well laid, well financed campaign to promote Islam, NUTTER and SILENCE everyone proclaiming the FACTS and TRUTH about Islam, its blood thirsty founder Mohammed, its doctrine of violence, terror, conquest, and hate, and its blood soaked history.
While making Islam the wronged “victim,” and turning those expressing concern and exposing the genuine threat Islam poses into “the ‘REAL THREAT”: dangerous, “enemies of progress and enlightenment”; crazy Christians, and American flag waving “zenophobes” and “Islamophobes”,
Today, all over America, public schools and universities are openly, actively promoting Islam and indoctrinating our children and young people, while doing everything within their power to reject and stigmatize Christianity and America’s Judeo-Christian founding and heritage.
And the penultimate insult to everyone who died on 9/11, their families, and all of America: we now have Muslim congressmen who openly proclaim their antisemitism, and hatred for America, Christians, Christianity, Jews, and the nation of Israel while suffering no blowback, condemnation or consequences for their vile, hate-filled beliefs and rhetoric.
“Never Forget”... we never REMEMBERED. Tagline
Mu hope is that Trump begins his 2nd term with a MASSIVE overall of the education system.
His name is Nicholas Haros Jr. His mother was a victim of 9/11. His message was a powerful tribute to his mother and all 9/11 victims, and should have shamed Talib to hell (but she’s shameless, so it won’t).
Otherwise they wouldn't be sending idiots and enemies of the State to congress.
The wrong question is being asked. The right question is, “Did our enemies learn anything from 9-11?”
Obviously they did, and their agenda has been marching on aided by sympathetic leftists who want to destroy our country and the very fabric of our society.
Since all non-citizen Muslims have not been deported and all citizen Muslims are not under surveillance, no, we have not learned.
OK...our soldiers are on their soil. If their soldiers were on OUR soil, would it be terrorism if I were to attack them, or would it be patriotism? I think we are better off to get in, kill the bad guys and get out ASAP rather than be seen as an occupying force.
Your mileage may vary.
Every year we see the same question asked and answered. Every year the question is fair but the answer is wrong. Have WE learned to lesson of 9-11? The answer is a responding yes! But, we have also learned that the left is always busy aiding and abetting the Muslim terrorists who want to kill us. THEY are also united in their burning desire to destroy us. One other thing: Those of us old enough to remember Sept 12 will remember that the Democrat controlled media IMMEDIATELY started to attack Bush for not responding fast enough for them. The “unity” that never really was only lasted until the Democrats decided on the means and method of attack.
So, it’s us against the terrorist and their enablers on the left.
Hell no. 18 years later and we still have little old ladies being asked to remove their shoes before they can get on a commercial airliner, and there's still Muhammadans living in America.
Learn what? That we can’t trust our own government to tell us the truth about something as big as THE SAUDIS DID 911?
You’v got it wrong
there were Saudis involved but not the Saudi Government.
IMHO what is forgotten is how to make war. We have had a couple of generations of “neoconservatives” and associated ilk who pretend warfare has changed somehow. The formula for war is as old as mankind, I suspect, and that is, Invade enemy, seize their capital execute their leaders and kill everyone who raises a hand against you. To pretend there is some substitute and limited goals can replace the old formula is to invite disaster. The disaster we are now involved in. IMHO just get out. Out of Afghanistan, out of Korea, out of Germany and let everyone know on the way that we have remembered the old formula for war and if we have to come back there won’t be any “good guys” coming back. Their leaders will be executed and everyone that raises a hand against us will die. Of course, there will always be one “unruly child”. Make one hell of an example out of that one. That is the recipe for generations of Peace.
Pretty sure the Saudis involved were Royal Family which DOES make it “the Saudi Government.”
The libtards are always trying to find someone who will kill us on their behalf. Muslims, the ATF, they really don’t care who but they are absolutely convinced that someday, somehow they can do it. Sure, it’s a delusion but it is one they are pretty stuck on.
No, it does not.
The fact a royal was involved does not extrapolate to the government .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.