How should America have responded to the 9-11 terrorist attacks?

Question

I see a lot of opinions expressing distaste for the way Bush has handled things since the 9-11 attacks. My question is, how should it have been handled differently? If we had the benefit of hindsight, how could things have been done better? Please, only serious, non-profane answers. This is for thinking people. I really am interested in what people have to say.

Answer 1

That's a well written question and thought out question.
The one thing that is for sure is that we had to respond somehow. Our policies of basically ignoring these radicals only resulted in more terror and murder - finally culminating in the events of 9/11.
I can't help but think if we had invaded ANY country in the Mid East, we would still be getting the criticism that we have now. People think we should have concentrated more on capturing or killing Osama - but, even in hindsight, that's a pretty tall order. He is but one man, with lots of support from the Islamic terrorists and a vast area to hide in.
Again, in hindsight, we certainly underestimated the hatred and violence that's presently taking place between the different sects - it seems at times that they are more concerned and loyal to their own particular brand of Islam than their patriotism toward their country and fellow countrymen.
I think that, again, we had no choice but to respond with military action. We are not fighting a particular country, we are fighting a demented idiology. As such, I think the idea of trying to implement a democracy in the Middle East is an excellent long range plan to try and bring some stability to the area and give the young people alternatives other than hate and terror. Unfortunately, I don't know if the "instant gratification" mind set of the American society is up to a long and drawn out conflict. It doesn't appear so presently.
The next two years will define our sucess or failure - during this time we must be united in our efforts and not accept political grand standing in place of real policy initiatives.
This non binding resolution presently taking place is nonsense - the Congress should either fulfill their campaign promises of early withdrawal or they should support the president's latest initiatives - but either way, the should DO SOMETHING other than promoting their moot, pro terrorist, anti-troop resolutions.

Answer 2

It's not really how we should have handled the situation more effectively. It's really how we should have prevented it in advance. In reality, when someone invades or attacks the country, we go to war. When we went to war, it was ill managed. Thus, it's another Vietnam episode where we're trying to do the impossible. End communism. However, we went to war in Afang, where Bin Laden was held accountable for the attack. Then we invaded Iraq, because we had to stop Saddam from killing his people... That's when we lost sight of the war. Bush claimed that Saddam had WMDs, but there was none. It only extended the war history. The political irony is that we caught the wrong guy and were still at war. Now he's that Bush has received his satisfaction, he has more super power control. Then we worry about Iran... North Korea. It really makes an implication that Bush wants to conquer the world. That probably explains why he is requesting another quadruple dozens of troops. Then we got to hear the same baloney speech. It became a humorous joke when people started making sound boards for his speech. C'mon, where do we draw the line? Are we going to catch Bin Laden or not? Or, are we gonna wait till the last minute to hear him say " I finally got Bin Laden, will you reelect me please?" According to the Constitution, that's not gonna happen, but he does have the control, attention, and majority support from the citizens from using relgious references to make the citzens feel compassionate in order to gain our trust. Now we have to live everyday to hear the UH-60 Black hawk copters going down, the soldiers dying in combat, and more soldiers enlisting military forces. So, the answer to your question about how we should have responded to the 9/11 terrorist attack? Well, we have CTU, DOD, NSA, CIA, FBI, and so forth... Who knows if they cooperated or knew about the attack? We don't, but there should be no reason why we could not prevented the attack. This is unlike any other unforgivable historical event in US history.

Answer 3

I believe there are two things he could have done differently:

1. Bush could have shown greater respect for the American people and those that were lost in 9/11 by commiting to a plan to track down the terrorists. This would have meant continuing in the military plan to find Bin Laden. By focussing the lion's share of troops and attention on Iraq...said to be a country harbouring terrorists...the trail of Bin Laden is now cold. When was the last time you heard him mentioned.

2. Bush could have shown more respect to the other countries of the world who mourned along with America following 9/11. His 'You are With Us, or Against Us' speech alienated many, and went a long way to push the rest of the world into a state of apathy where the US is concerned.

Answer 4

For 17 years--going all the way back to the Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon, our presidents did nothing or next to it (unless you want to call firing off a few Tomahawk missiles as retaliation). Mr. Bush was actually the first president besides Ronald Reagan who gathered the facts, got the correct intell, and responded with force. Pres. Reagan had an advantage though, he knew it was Omar Qaddafi. Pres. Bush had to wait for concrete validation. Did we begin reigning in the network who funded and arranged the mass murders of 3000 people? Yes. Have we been slowly crippling or destroying their command and control infrastructure since? Yes again. Could things have been done differently, probably but this was uncharted territory and I believe our President did the best job he could. Not only in securing our homeland but over the pond as well.

Answer 5

As Bush Sr stated in the early 90s: YOu cannot fight terrorism with conventional war as it will only exaserbate the situation. Any 15 year old kid can strap on a bomb and kill 100 people. The war on terrorism is a war of ieals. You must fight clandestinely against the underlying causes, or risk making the situation exponentially worse.

Additionally, according to the US DoD, global terroirst attacks have increased 5000% (not a typo 5000%) since the war in iraq has started.

Answer 6

It would have been prevented under a good president. There is just too much freaky coincidences under Bush.

Go after Al-Qaida and focus solely on the terrorist organization responsible, rather then redirecting resources, energy and focus to the oil and war profiteering among friends and colleagues such as halliburton and Carlyle for one's own benefit. Use intelligence to focus on Al-Qaida! Al-Qaida, Al-Qaida instead of talking about Iraq, Iraq, Iraq every day!

There's so much bush did wrong, and it's all be said before what those things were, why doesn't it sink in for a lot of people? There's got to be some alterior motive or something for those who still support Bush.

Answer 7

The only thing I think should have been done different would to be to give the military their mission, then leave them alone and let them do it. All this "oversight" is what got us stalled in Viet Nam.

I like your question. Way too many people are quick to criticize and not offer a reasonable alternative.

Answer 8

At the time we didn't know who exactly was doing the attacking, so how should we have responded? We did the best that we could under the circumstances. When we did find out what nations provided the attackers, those nations denied any knowledge of what was done. They called those people fanatic's & swore no knowledge of any plans to attack this country. There was no proof then or now of plotting by those nations for this attack on America.

Answer 9

it should be re investigated by independent people . i believe it is the reichstag fire of our generation . google 'loose change' just too many coincidences and inconsistencies to be 'real' . look at WTC building 7 . why did it have to be 'pulled' ? it housed FBI , CIA , NYC emergency management offices. no other conventionally built skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire. how did they get a demolition team to lower Manhattan that day ,set the charges so fast ,in a burning building? g. Bush's brothers security firm was in charge of wtc . his contract ended on 9-11.why did he not bother to renegotiate a new one before hand ? the list goes on and on . the Nazi's burned down their own headquarters just to blame the Jews (reichstag fire )and unite Germany to their idea of 'new world order' . the parallels are scary.

Answer 10

I see you haven't gotten much of a response from the libs. They are all talk and no action. They would have tried sanctions and said please stop, when that didn't work, they would have issued a stern warning with more sanctions, then a demand to stop with more time for the poor terrorists to turn their lives around then ultimately, they would have bent over and took it from the terrorists because, "if you do, they'll leave us alone".

What fool's. Bush is doing an awesome job. God bless him.