Centerfield

I thought this was as good a 9/11 statement as I could ever write. Properly unpolitical and recalling the memory of those who suffered.

BURLINGTON, VT—Governor Howard Dean, M.D. released the following statement on the anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001:

“Two years ago, the unthinkable happened. 3,000 Americans lost their lives to mass murderers who wished only to take the lives of our people, and take them indiscriminately. The national wound left by those attacks will be long in healing, and for the many Americans whose lives it touched, we can offer only our comfort for their perseverance and our prayers for their lost.

“In the days and weeks that followed that horrendous tragedy, we demonstrated the best of who we are as a nation. Through the masses of people helping one another cross the Brooklyn Bridge, to the thousands and thousands of Americans who donated blood or food or clothing for the survivors, to the candlelight vigils in cities and towns across America, to the phone calls from loved ones and long-lost friends offering aid and solace, we all shared a common grief and a common unity. We were struck a cruel blow that day, but we responded by drawing closer as a nation and as a people, and in our fellowship, we were as strong as we have ever been.

“As Americans, we grow together, we work together, we celebrate together, we hope together, and when some of our numbers are fallen, as on that awful day two years ago, our great American hearts break together, and we mourn and we draw strength, and stand together. As one community, America can never be broken.”

There was a real fundamental problem with the debate over the Iraq war. Both sides essentially lost all regard for the opposing side, and both pursued a line of reasoning that was deeply flawed.

The anti-war folks (of whom I count myself as a member) tended to rely on passionate moral arguments -- "no blood for oil", and the like. I think they failed to grasp that using war to remove a truly brutal dictator isn't, on the face of it, morally objectionable.

Hussein led one of the world's most repressive governments for over a quarter century, and there was no reason to believe anyone would be able to unseat him in the foreseeable future. Someone eventually had to get rid of that guy -- and a willingness on the part of the U.S. to do it isn't, on a moral level, a bad thing.

The pro-war folks made similar skips in logic. They tended to view any opposition to the war as support for the Iraqi regime, or opposition to freedom or democracy. Or worse, disloyalty to the United States.

They just didn't deal with the *practical* issues surrounding this war. It may well be a laudible *moral* goal to take down Saddam, but is it practical for the U.S. -- a country viewed with deep suspicion in the Arab world -- to occupy an Arab country and help build a new government?

Furthermore, is it practical to do it with very little world support? It might work if multilateral bodies -- the U.N., the Arab League, NATO -- step in and play a role in the rebuilding. But what if the U.S. ends up doing it alone? And what if every militant in the region starts to flock to the country for their chance at jihad against U.S. troops?

Practical issues. The pro-war folks couldn't deal with the practical side of this war, while the anti-war folks failed to make a favorable impression on the rest of us because of the ideological or pacifist focus of much of their rhetoric.

We were left with a situation where we just didn't respect each other. In some sense, both sides just failed to debate this in any kind of rational framework where we could actually communicate with one another.

That really was an outstanding statement, Steven. Thanks for posting it.