On the surface, Bin Laden just got lucky. He successfully planned a despicable terrorist act and, after that, events just happened. Nobody could have predicted the ultimate outcome of 9/11. Or could they have? And if they could have, is it wise for us to "stay the course?"
It seems not at all beyond the realm of possibility that everything that's happened since 9/11 was foreseeable and, in fact, intended by Bin Laden.
To begin with, the thought processes of the Bush Administration were out there for all to see. Project for a New American Century, or PNAC, was formed in 1997 by a group that is identical to the power structure in the Bush administration. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz, and others all were founding members of PNAC. PNAC openly advocated the invasion of Iraq. On PNAC's website, its research and position papers not only set forth in detail why its member believed it critical that we invade Iraq, but suggested that the American public would not support the "transformation of the American military" until a "Pearl Harbor type event" occurred.
So, by simply surfing the net, Bin Laden easily could have anticipated that if he could cause a Pearl Harbor type event, Bush very likely would invade Iraq, or otherwise embark upon the reckless course advocated by PNAC. But would he have known how devastating the invasion of Iraq would prove to be for America, or did he just get lucky in that regard? Again, it's quite possible that Bin Laden could have intended the ultimate result. All he would have needed would be a decent knowledge of Iraqi society and world history.
Here's the outcome our Vice President himself predicted if we invaded Iraq:
"I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to deep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a president to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq." Dick Cheney, the Washington Institute's Soref Symposium, April 29, 1991.
Those were the words of the more level headed Dick Cheney that existed during the Bush 41 administration, not the power-drunk Dick Cheney with whom we are more familiar. But even though Cheney's words somehow were lost on Cheney himself, they demonstrate how readily predictable the outcome of the invasion of Iraq truly was.
It seems that if Dick Cheney himself understood what likely would happen if we invaded Iraq, Osama Bin Laden certainly did. After all, Bin Laden was in a far better position to understand the Muslim culture, including the inherent instability of Sunni-Shiite relations. And, just like Americans understand American politics and American society better than Europeans and Asians do, Bin Laden and his followers knew and understood Middle East politics and the Arab mentality far better than we do. So, again, it doesn't seem far fetched to believe that Bin Laden understood well the likely outcome of an American invasion of Iraq and intended to place us in the quagmire we now find ourselves.
From this point, there's only one more step to take.
Shortly after we invaded Iraq, Pat Buchanan wrote "Where the Right Went Wrong," in which he explained how all empires ultimately peak, then decline. Buchanan explained the decline of Britain and Germany, once the pre-eminent world powers, as a result of World Wars I and II. America rose to power in the twentieth century in large part by avoiding the devastating losses in those wars that other countries incurred. But, according to Buchanan, just as Britain and Germany spent themselves in World Wars I and II, America is in the process of spending itself on wars today. The invasion of Iraq, Buchanan posited, was the turning point for America, marking the beginning of the decline of America's stature in the world.
Buchanan's book was not available in 2001, but the information and logic on which Buchanan relied was. Thus, Bin Laden easily could have anticipated the devastating impact of another war on America. He may not have anticipated how badly we would blunder in conducting the Iraq war, and how spot on the Buchanan logic would prove to be, but he easily could have reached the same conclusions Buchanan reached regarding an American invasion of Iraq.
We never should underestimate the enemy. While it's easy to write off 9/11 as a despicable terrorist act, it is more productive to acknowledge how savvy Bin Laden may have been and how, by electing Bush and Cheney in 2000, we may have given Bin Laden an opening he could drive a truck through. Once Bush and Cheney were elected, Bin Laden very well could have realized that all he need do was create a Pearl Harbor type event, and Bush and Cheney would take it from there. When evaluating whether to "stay the course" as Bush and Cheney urge us to do, we ought to keep this in mind.
Comments are closed on this story.