[djcjr]

Seems deliberately deceitful.

After listing historical terrorist events and responses, Mr. Koppel tries to lump in our invasion of Iraq as an over-sized reaction to terrorism from 9/11 which happened eighteen months earlier.

The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, it was about oil, as we all know now, after the propaganda has died down and people have generally gone back to sleep.

The loss of privacy and rights since then, and currently, is our govt misbehaving, and also has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

[brown]

There is a difference between "motive" and "justification".

The government's motive is oil, money, growth in scope, etc.

The government's justification is terrorism. So this conversation is absolutely related to terrorism.

Awareness of that difference is important. Articles like this are key to promoting awareness.

[mikeash]

The invasion of Iraq had everything to do with 9/11. Without 9/11 or something like it, there never would have been enough support for an invasion of Iraq to actually carry it out.

Yes, among the people at the top who planned it, it was not a reaction to terrorism. But the public support for it absolutely was.

Our democracy is far from perfect, and much of government is corrupt, but the government is still by and large a reflection of the people. The people's massive overreaction to terrorism allows, even requires, the government to do bad stuff like invade Iraq, wiretap every American phone call, and more.

We need to convince the people to stop overreacting to terrorism so that the government loses that excuse to misbehave.

[userulluipeste]

"Without 9/11 or something like it, there never would have been enough support for an invasion of Iraq to actually carry it out."

Why not? It happened before, how could it not happen again? Actually, seen from outside of U.S., the Iraq events that followed the reinstatement of the Bush family appear very naturally, those were like... family policy!

[mikeash]

Even with 9/11, there was massive public opposition to the invasion. However, 9/11 had caused a massive shift overall, resulting in much greater popular support for the government in general and the administration in particular, and it caused the Democrats to abdicate their role as the "loyal opposition" and instead become rubber stamps. Additionally, 9/11 was used to drum up a great deal of additional support for the invasion by painting it as part of the war on terror. I don't believe it was ever outright stated, but it was heavily implied that Iraq was partially responsible for 9/11, and that the invasion would prevent future attacks.

In a hypothetical world without 9/11, the Bush administration would still want to invade Iraq, no doubt. It's been shown that they started the project of figuring out how to do it well before. But I don't think they'd be able to pull it off. Public opposition would have been much greater, Congressional opposition would have actually happened, and I don't think they would have been able to steamroll over that, or even anywhere close.

Bush more or less came into office as a lame duck. He was the first president in living memory to have won the election while losing the popular vote. He was often thought of as a buffoon, and even his supporters, in my experience, supported him more out of team spirit than because they actually thought he was some brilliant leader. I believe that, in this environment, the default position on a proposed invasion of Iraq would have been a solid "no, why would you even want to do that?"

But mix in 9/11 and the following year and a half of terrorist-related paranoia and fighting, and a lot of people changed their minds to "yes, we must support our leaders in their glorious fight against the al Qaeda menace."