It has been 10 years since 9/11, and all of us who write about such things for a living are writing about it. That causes me to be wary. I prefer being the lonely voice, but the fact is that 9/11 was a defining moment in American history. On Sept. 12, 2001, few would have anticipated the course the resulting war would take — but then, few knew what to think. The nation was in shock. In retrospect, many speak with great wisdom about what should have been thought about 9/11 at the time and what should have been done in its aftermath. I am always interested in looking at what people actually said and did at the time.

The country was in shock, and shock was a reasonable response. The country was afraid, and fear was a reasonable response. Ten years later, we are all much wiser and sure that our wisdom was there from the beginning. But the truth is that, in retrospect, we know we would have done things superbly had we the authority. Few of us are being honest with ourselves. We were all shocked and frightened. Our wisdom came much later, when it had little impact. Yes, if we knew then what we know now we would have all bought Google stock. But we didn’t know things then that we know now, so it is all rather pointless to lecture those who had decisions to make in the midst of chaos.

Some wars are carefully planned, but even those wars rarely take place as expected. Think of the Germans in World War I, having planned the invasion of France for decades and with meticulous care. Nothing went as planned for either side, and the war did not take a course that was anticipated by anyone. Wars occur at unpredictable times, take unpredictable courses and have unexpected consequences. Who expected the American Civil War to take the course it did? We have been second-guessing Lincoln and Davis, Grant and Lee and all the rest for more than a century.

1
George Friedman

George Friedman

George Friedman is the CEO and chief intelligence officer of Stratfor, a private intelligence company located in Austin, TX.

Most Recent Articles

Join the Debate
15 Comments So Far
Blair31 Wrote: Sep 16, 2011 11:11 AM
The 9/11 truthers believe that 9/11 was an inside job. That's not true. That would require a massive
conspiracy in which everybody had to keep their pie holes shut. Very difficult to do in Washington since Washington leaks like a sieve. "Three people can keep a secret. Provided two are dead." ___Benjamin Franklin
Stephen - East Coast Wrote: Sep 09, 2011 12:22 PM
Like everyone who has thought about it, the question "What would YOU have done?" is first and foremost. I think that, initially, most people would have reacted in the same fashion. In retrospect, however, a different plan has entered my mind - one that could still be implemented right now. I call it "The Klaatu Doctrine" - as long as a country keeps its own violence within its own borders, no problem with it; but if that violence spills out into other countries (like Hezbollah and other terrorist-encouragers that daily launch missiles into Israel), then that country can expect first a "warning-shot" bomb, and then the real nuclear thing.
notstupidenough Wrote: Sep 09, 2011 6:19 AM
In such a cliche-ridden article I'm amazed I didn't see, "We need to fight them over there before they get over here". And as far as the link that leads to nowhere that says, "there have been no more successful major attacks on the United States" reminds me of the joke about a man dancing about and wildly flailing his arms in Times Square. When asked about his actions He proudly proclaimed it kept the tigers at bay. It was pointed out that there were no tigers anywhere around there and his response was, "See? It works."
Armand11 Wrote: Sep 08, 2011 9:54 PM
Mr. Friedman,
For 14 centuries Islam has spread Violence and mayhem.
There is not a single islamic country where TRUE democracy prevails.
All violence in the world seems to be Muslim.
Every news bulletin has a never ending report(s) of Islamic terrorism.
Even countries like Turkey who has been secular for most of the 20th. century is now turning to Islamic Fundamentalism and is becoming belligerent to Israel yesterday's ally....
Since Islam and the muslims are not ready to accept debating their Koran, their theology, their Archeology, their chronology and their history,....it is sad to say that no matter how you cut it,...we are on a straight course with a clash of civilization(s).
wessr Wrote: Sep 08, 2011 8:07 PM
We can all contemplate the course history takes, but always after the fact. The statement: "I have never sorted through what it was that the Bush administration thought it was doing." It is not hard to surmise. Foremost, retaliation. Secondarily, resolve (he said so) to overwhelm; or in other words: "peace through strength;" and, democracy. Stopping attacks and marginalizing Al Qaeda's core is success.

Saddam, Qadaffi; Is there a difference? Purple fingers in Iraq; Libya, the MB?

As long as we are their enemy, they will remain ours. The catch 22 in this war is no peace while engaged and none assured when we leave. What to do when next time comes will again be good to question.
gary395 Wrote: Sep 08, 2011 10:01 AM
Islam is a cult, not a religion.
Joe 145 Wrote: Sep 08, 2011 9:02 AM
Political Islam has been at war against us since the Declaration of Independence. It was at war against England before that. Political Islam is at war against all other national governments, although it is not actually attacking them physically right now. The good news for the U.S. was that for the most part, Political Islam was a long distance away from us. This has changed. And as you said, with more than 1 billion Muslims, the situation is not going to go back to what it was.
Judester Wrote: Sep 08, 2011 7:55 AM
We won what? They pray in the streets and shut down the use of the street, we do nothing about it. They wanted to build a mosque at the WTC site. We settled for a few blocks away. Legislators considering sharia law to be admitted into our laws. We won what?
cashe Wrote: Sep 08, 2011 7:49 AM
If we were to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq tomorrow, regimes that are hostile to America would be in power there in a few short years, perhaps even months. And staying longer will not alter the outcome. That is why I consider these wars failures. Despite years of effort, huge amounts of money, and alot of lives, we did not accomplish anything worthwhile.

Pundits wil try to obfuscate in the short term, but the long view of history will see these wars for what they were; a waste.
John1171 Wrote: Sep 08, 2011 7:20 AM
And which also turned into a prolonged nation-building effort, the success of which will be proven in history yet unwritten. The wiser decision on 9/12/01 would have been to have a total moratorium on immigration, place troops on the borders to interdict all individuals attempting to transit the borders. Stop all tourism, all trade, all shipping and all airline flights and cease diplomatic relations, as necessary, to effectuate self-executed change in those countries with regard to terrorist activities.
Domestic national security and defense is a normal, necessary and expected activity for every nation. Wars waged on foreign territory to effectuate domestic national security are an absurd, costly waste of manpower and materiel.
John1171 Wrote: Sep 08, 2011 7:12 AM
The major, costly mistake was not to have adequate intelligence concerning the whereabouts of Al Quaida at the time of, and immediately after, 9/11 in order to fulfill the goal of eliminating them from the face of the earth and, as a result, having to expand the military involvement in Afghanistan, diverting from the goal of bringing Al Quaida to justice and beginning an enlarged and prolonged nation-building effort that is not our legitimate responsibility or logical interest. The decision to go into Iraq appeared to be a "knee-jerk" reaction, justifiable by implication, but obviously not well-thought out, the limited goal of eliminating weapons of mass destruction--which ,as it turned out, did not exist at the time of the invasion--
Patriot155 Wrote: Sep 08, 2011 6:47 AM
We need to build the SOF community. They are "the need to be" tip of the spear in this conflict. Our vulnerability is that we give our enemy too big a target surface to strike at.
Georgia Boy 61 Wrote: Sep 08, 2011 2:19 AM
In closing, to remain in Afghanistan is to play right into our enemy's hands. The war against Islam will be a long one, with many other campaigns and fights to win. Afghanistan has become a sideshow. Sometimes, conservation of force against future threats is the proper course of action. And let me remind you that we're broke; borrowing money from the Chinese to wage this war is beyond stupid, and very foolhardy.
Georgia Boy 61 Wrote: Sep 08, 2011 2:16 AM
(part 2 of 2) Has it occurred to you that the 9-11 attacks were designed specifically to lure the U.S. into a prolonged irregular conflict of just the kind we are now waging? Leaving aside the morality of the 9-11 attacks, one must credit the strategic genius of OBL and AQ; for the cost of a few shahids (believers), some boxcutters, and some basic flight training, they managed to lure us into a decade long war costing a trillion dollars (Af-Pak alone), the blood of our soldiers, and more. What was their ROI? Ten million fold? Whatever the exact figure, it is very high. We killed OBL and routed the Taliban and AQ, so why are we still there? Let's declare victory and bring the troops home. Nation-building is a fool's errand.
Georgia Boy 61 Wrote: Sep 08, 2011 2:10 AM
Dr. Friedman, I have in the past subscribed to Startfor and often find myself in agreement with you - but I simply must take issue with you re: "9/11 and the Successful War" if by successful, you mean the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (to which we can add Libya, Egypt, and Yemen). You note that we have not been attacked since 9-11 in a large scale terrorist attack, and on that basis, judge the war to have been a success. The trouble with this logic is that you can't prove a negative; there is no way of knowing that our decision to go to war in South Asia and the Middle East had any bearing our safety since 2001. Correlation does not prove casaulity.

(see part 2)