A hard look at America after 9/11

A hard look at America after 9/11
© Getty Images

9/11 is always a somber day. There are names read at the stunning memorial at Ground Zero, bells tolling, and commemorative events at the Pentagon and at Shanksville, Pennsylvania, which early today was the site of a poignant speech by President TrumpDonald John TrumpThe Memo: Ayers decision casts harsh light on Trump NASA offers to show Stephen Curry evidence from moon landings Freedom Caucus calls on leadership to include wall funding, end to 'catch and release' in funding bill MORE.

But memory needs to be more. We must never forgive the heinous acts perpetrated by the hijackers and their handlers. Or fail to protect our country from another catastrophic attack, which has not happened in the 17 years since that fateful Tuesday, thanks to the vigilance of homeland security officials, first responders, and ordinary citizens.

ADVERTISEMENT

Memory must also include a clear eyed assessment of what we got right, what we got wrong, and the lessons we must learn. In hindsight, we had a stunning opportunity in the days following 9/11 to unify our country and to repair frayed relationships with many countries in the world. As co-chair of the special House Intelligence Subcommittee on Terrorism, with Saxby ChamblissClarence (Saxby) Saxby ChamblissCIA's ‘surveillance state’ is operating against us all Juan Williams: GOP plays the bigotry card in midterms A hard look at America after 9/11 MORE, I proudly stood arm in arm with colleagues on the steps of the Capitol singing “God Bless America.”

Our country was attacked, and no one tried to play party advantage. Enactment of the authorization to use military force to go after those who attacked us, then harboring in Afghanistan, was virtually unanimous. Every country in the world including Cuba and Iran, with whom we had no diplomatic relations, expressed solidarity and sympathy. Cuba offered its air facilities so planes headed to the United States could land. NATO invoked Article V, the collective defense provision, for the first time in its history. For a fleeting moment, the world and American politics aligned.

What if that alignment had been embraced by our leaders on a bipartisan basis and a unified multifaceted strategy had been pursued? Instead, a world coalition was spurned, and many of the policies pursued in the first term of President George W. Bush were justified on the basis of his emergency powers as commander in chief, not developed in collaboration with Congress or our allies.

The prison at Guantanamo Bay was set up to be outside the reach of United States law. The Geneva Convention rules were largely ignored for the treatment of prisoners. Labels including the “Axis of Evil” and the “Global War on Terror” were developed to lump together countries and tactics, all while creating new enemies.

America displayed her impressive hard power might, forgetting that those who attacked us did so based on a cruel distortion of what the West is, and what their Muslim religion dictates. We used their playbook, when we had the means to defeat their idea with our better idea, which is what America stands for. Rule of law. Generosity of spirit. Inclusiveness. Respect. What if we had tried that?

Crucial opportunities to ease relations with adversaries like Cuba by loosening the embargo, or opening counterterrorism dialogue with Iran, were never embraced. In the new foreign policy, old enemies became hidden enemies and regime change became imperative to restoring liberty. But the invasion of Iraq, which I supported based on flawed intelligence, created no lasting peace in the region, and war torn Afghanistan remains a boot camp for terror organizations.

Eased relations with adversaries may have led to trade openings, stabilizing regional economies, and dampening the appeal of extremism. Hard power actions were still necessary to defeat terror, but making dialogue the first step may have maximized the utility of those efforts. In Iran, a diplomatic window may have eased its malign behavior.

In his second inaugural speech in 2005, President Bush said our liberty is indeed dependent on liberty in other lands. Would Iran, Syria, and Libya have embraced liberty? Would both political parties have seen their roles differently? Would American values, displayed vividly through the use of our soft power, have helped defeat extremism without the huge expenditure of treasure and human life?

What if? Instead of close to two decades focused on counterterrorism, what if the United States focused on transforming the nature of work, generating fiscally responsible budgets, curing cancer, and exploring the heavens? What if we celebrated progress in those areas while also remembering the heroes who never lived to see it? What if?

Jane Harman is president of the Wilson Center. She served 16 years in Congress as a representative from California and was the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security Intelligence Subcommittee.