March 12, 2002
People seem to feel the need to re-examine everything from last September on the six-month "anniversary" of the events. Who am I to argue?
My post from September 12th pretty much still sums up my feelings about the attacks. We now know who orchestrated the attack, and the military is currently on the ground in Afghanistan attempting to capture him. Even Saudi Arabia is making an attempt to look like they're distancing themselves from the terrorists now.
On the other hand, I don't really feel any different than I did when I went to work on the morning of 9/11/2001. I obviously wish that 3000 of my fellow talking apes hadn't died, but I was lucky enough to have not been personally affected by what happened. As I said six months ago, the Somerset County crash was only about 20 miles from here, but that still doesn't mean a whole lot to me on a personal level. Looking back, being sent home from work was more surreal than anything.
So what now?
I've seen New York governor George Pataki speaking at the temporary memorial in New York City, delivering a speech that would make Al Gore look animated and emotional by comparison. I've seen several pictures of the sphere from World Trade Plaza that now looks like a ping pong ball that's been stepped on. In an hour and a half they'll turn on the spotlights in Manhattan to emulate the towers just in time for the evening news. And the military is still flushing out the caves in eastern Afghanistan, and taking extremely light casualties in the process.
What of these memorials? Personally, I feel like it's all rushed. Almost like we need to be reminded of what happened (could we possibly forget?) in order to continue supporting the military action. I don't think Americans are that short-sighted, and the constant coverage of the "war" would be enough to keep us reminded anyway. So why are they doing all this now?
The best I can think of is that we, as a country, still feel the need to wear what happened on our collective sleeve. Marking the first anniversary of the attacks with a quiet, somber ceremony in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania would have worked just fine. But I don't think that we're collectively mature enough for something like that. The world knows what happened, they know how completely shocked we were (and still are). This overblown, fake anniversary is unnecessary, and I truly feel bad for the relatives who are being trotted out for it all. Is it possible for a memorial service to be gauche?
In an attempt to review the last six months, I'm trying to think of who would have been better-suited to be president for all this: Bush or Gore? I've decided that, as Clinton's successor, Gore also would have had no clue about how to use the military. We'd still be launching cruise missles without having ground troops anywhere nearby, and we'd be calling it a victory even as bin Laden makes another taped speech. On the other hand, we wouldn't have any of these borderline-fascist policies that John Aschroft has initiated under the guide of "homeland defense." We all know Bush's M.O. -- well-executed military operations (probably because he's letting the military just do its job), but a severe curtailing of freedoms here in the States.
I'm not sure which is better, and I'm pissed that I have to play this game of what-if to decide. There's no reason we should have to surrender our rights to keep the country safe. There's no reason we should have to let a Puritan tell us what's right and wrong just so we can get a well-run military. History shows us that after the wartime conditions end, these unconstitutional laws will be quickly removed from the books. But this isn't like World War II. We knew when the Germans and Japanese had no armed forces left. We knew when the enemy was defeated. We can't have that kind of knowledge now. And that's why I'm afraid that some of these laws will never go away.
So there you have it, my thoughts at the six-month mark.
