LogFAQs > #927299380

OhhhJa posted...

Because that invasion wasnt just about iraq. It led to everything we're seeing now. Iraq, Afghanistan, syria, yemen, the list goes on. They needed massive public support for that.

That logic only works if you fantasize that there was some over-arching, far-sighted, unified strategic masterplan in 2001 to force US military intervention in every one of those states -- instead of US foreign policy being improvised by different administrations in response to local developments that did not unfold in the region until ten years after 9/11.

You can't draw a short, straight line between a 9/11 conspiracy and the civil wars in Syria or Yemen, and it's far-fetched to the point of absurdity to suggest that public support was being carefully engineered in 2001 to back Uncle Sam's taking sides over Yemen after 2015.

The only "massive public support" needed in 2001-2003 was for action in Afghanistan and Iraq. When it came to Iraq, the case for war was built on allegations of weapons of mass destruction rather than 9/11; and by 2009, the American public's appetite for continued involvement had largely evaporated. Yet widespread disillusionment over failures in Iraq did not prevent the White House from later taking interventionist standpoints over Libya or Syria -- which knocks a dent in the idea that "massive public support" is always necessary for such foreign policy adventures.

But again, my point: there was public support for Uncle Sam's invasions of Grenada, Panama, and Kuwait -- none of which actually required a single American civilian to die for the public to give their support, again and again and again. The idea that the American public could only be pushed into backing for major military action by crashing planes into the World Trade Center is arrant nonsense that spits in the face of history and common sense.
---

Badwired