The Myths of 9/11

September 11th, 2010 at 6:54 am David Frum | 153 Comments |

| Print

Some Americans are in a debunking mood on this ninth anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks. Ted Koppel has produced a new documentary for the BBC arguing that America over-reacted to the murder of 3,000 citizens. Fareed Zakaria endorses the view in the current edition of Newsweek.

Let me join the party with some debunking of my own. Here are three ideas we heard a lot in the aftermath of 9/11. All of them have proven wrong. All continue to be heard even so.

1) We can’t stop terrorism without addressing the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

2) Invading Iraq will lead to a global surge of Islamic terrorism.

3) Terrorism is a product of poverty and despair.

Well, the Israeli-Palestinian dispute remains unresolved. Yet despite this non-resolution, the Islamic terrorism problem continues to dwindle.

Remember last Christmas’s underwear bomber? His bomb failed to detonate because the bomber had bungled his mixing of the explosive components.

In 2001, al-Qaeda co-ordinated almost two dozen men into four simultaneous hijackings of four aircraft in two cities. Nine years later, al-Qaeda terrorists are operating solo and isolated, because they fear any co-operation will be infiltrated, any communication intercepted.

It’s a valid fear. When would-be terrorists do attempt to co-operate, they end up like those four would be Canadianterrorists arrested this summer by the RCMP: arrested the minute their plot takes form.

In the years from the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 through 9/11, terrorist attacks on the United States and its allies grew steadily more complex and sophisticated. In the decade since 2001, each attack has become less complex and less sophisticated. The 2002 Bali bombing was less sophisticated than 9/11, the bombing of the Madrid train station less sophisticated than Bali, the London Underground bombing less sophisticated than Madrid. After London, it’s amateur hour: like the 2006 attempted bombing of the German train system that failed because the bombs didn’t go off.

Yet the Palestinian-Israel dispute remains unresolved, and looks likely to continue unresolved for years to come.

Ditto Iraq. Remember how there was supposed to be a surge of rage against the governments who fought the Iraq war? Yet the worst violence occurred in France, which did not join the war. And even in France, Islamic extremist violence has abated since 2005, contained and defeated by effective police work.

Al-Qaeda radicals carried out co-ordinated deadly bombings inside Saudi Arabia in 2005. Not since. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states now co-operate much more closely with the United States than ever before, including sharing financial information relating to terrorist networks. Terrorist incidents inside Iraq have tumbled by 90%, according to the Brookings Institution’s Iraq Index, as more and more Iraqis have sided with the government and the coalition-backed security forces.

Back in 2001, many — including then Canadian prime minister Jean Chretien — opined that terrorism was caused by poverty. (Behind that expressed opinion was an unexpressed opinion: that global poverty was somehow the fault of the wealthy West. It’s one more example of that old joke about the liberal-minded person who visits a friend in the hospital. The friend was savagely beaten in a mugging. The liberal visitor shakes his head sadly: “How much the poor man must have suffered for him to do such a thing!”)

Yet as has been minutely documented since 2001, terrorists disproportionately come from the elite of their native societies. (The underwear bomber was the son of one of the richest men in Nigeria.) The societies that produce terrorists are likewise not poor, not the way Burma is poor or Congo is poor. Whatever it is, terrorism is not a cry of anguish from the dispossessed.

Ted Koppel asks: “Could bin Laden, in his wildest imaginings, have hoped to provoke greater chaos?”

Short answer: Yes, way more. He surely hoped not to be ending his days skulking in caves, his key lieutenants languishing in Guantanamo. He could have hoped to have seized power in Saudi Arabia, to be proceeding to a global caliphate with himself installed as caliph. Instead, the biggest mass movement in the Muslim world is the one that sent hundreds of thousands of protesters into the streets of Tehran to demand honest elections and an end to religious policing. The only place on Earth that is more oriented to bin Ladenism today than 10 years ago is the Gaza Strip. Big win.

Nobody would claim that the United States and its allies have gotten everything right these past nine years. Many mistakes have been made, much money wasted. But if we’re going to take stock, let’s take stock impartially, and remember how much was gotten wrong these past years by those who today complain of “over-reaction.”

Originally published in the National Post.

Recent Posts by David Frum

153 Comments so far ↓

  • nhthinker

    Imagine the uproar by liberals if Christian bishops issued “fatwas” calling for the spilling of blood.

    Ayatollahs are free to claim its Gods will and the governments that they operate in will not bother them for it.

    No, for every sign of outrage for extreme Muslim religious leaders, we are treated to hear that at least a few of the people the bombed abortion clinics were Christian so therefore its not religious, just political.

    What horse manure.

    I’d love to find a debate between a “moderate Muslim Ayatollah” and a “radical Muslim Ayatollah” where the moderate tries to prove that the spilling of blood for such honor cases is clearly against Mohammad’s teaching.
    (As opposed to saying that restraint is possibly the better course even though spilling blood is justified).
    Moderate Muslims only religious claim seems to be that the West is not anti Islam and respects Islam so Islam should not attack it. But parts of the West are allowed be non-violently anti-Islam and to expect Western government to protect them for it- It’s not clear at all what side moderate Muslims come down on this- it seems to be a difficult decision for a lot of them.

    Do you think we will hear about moderate Muslims speaking out against these new fatwas?

    I’d then love to see how long the moderate Muslim lives after contradicting the radical Ayatollah.

    It’s possible that this Quran burning and the threats in response to it becomes an “I am Spartacus” moment in history.

  • SpartacusIsNotDead


    I absolutely agree with you about the duty of Christians to stand up to those Christians who spew hate. But, I think you give these haters too much credit when you attribute their hatred to the Christian teaching that there’s only one way to God or any other Biblical teaching. They don’t at all seem that interested in following any particular Christian teaching.

    Instead, the hatred is based solely on the fact that they can gain power by demonizing Muslims. They have no problem with adulterers, unless s/he is a Democrat. They have no problem with Hindus, Buddahists or Jews. Back in the 80s, they didn’t have a problem with any religion; communism was the big bad Satan. They didn’t even have much of a problem with Muslims before 9/11. But because of 9/11, they believe they can benefit politically by demonizing Muslims.

  • anniemargret

    sparty: Good points, all!