Informacije

Odgovor na 911 - Zgodovina

Odgovor na 911 - Zgodovina


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Septembra 2001

Odgovor na 911

Gremo globlje v Kuvajt

Takoj po napadih 11. septembra na Svetovni trgovinski center in Pentagon so ZDA zahtevale, da Afganistan preda Osamo bin Ladna, za katerega so ZDA odgovorne za napade, in izgnati Al Kaido iz države. Afganistanska talibanska vlada je prošnjo ZDA zavrnila in ZDA so načrtovale strmoglavljenje talibanske vlade. Ko je predsednik Bush zahteval načrte, so mu sprva predstavili načrt, da po šestmesečnih pripravah pošljejo 60.000 vojakov. Bush je ta načrt zavrnil in zahteval takojšnje ukrepanje. Namesto tega je bil vzpostavljen načrt za pošiljanje osebja Cie in Zelenih baretk, da se združijo s silami severnega zavezništva, ki se je borilo s talibani. Ameriške sile so se lahko uskladile z ameriškimi letalskimi sredstvi in ​​tako dale prednost Severni zavezništvu. Talibanom so hitro zavzeli številna mesta.



Odgovor Evropske unije na 11. september in njegove posledice

12. septembra, dan po terorističnih napadih na New York in Washington, DC, je ameriški predsednik George W. Bush svetu izjavil: "Da ne bo pomote - Združene države bodo lovile in kaznovale odgovorne za ta strahopetna dejanja. " Evropska unija je obljubila svojo podporo. Združene države so se skupaj z Evropsko unijo in drugimi državami hitro odzvale na napade. Potem ko so premagali afganistanske talibane, ki so hranili Osamo bin Ladna in njegovo teroristično skupino Al-Kaida, so se v koaliciji začela pojavljati trenja glede ravnanja z zaporniki in nadaljnjih dejanj ZDA.

Politično

  • Čeprav so se talibani soočili z velikim napadom Združenih držav in njihovih zaveznikov, niso bili pripravljeni predati Osame bin Ladna zaradi njegove domnevne udeležbe v napadih 11. septembra. Al-Kaida je talibanom pomagala v boju proti državljanski vojni za nadzor Afganistana proti Severnemu zavezništvu. Poleg tega je Al Kaida vojaško ostala močnejša od talibanov. Talibani so se bali, da bi jih Al Kaida umaknila z oblasti, če bi ukrepala proti bin Ladnu.
  • Ameriški predsednik George W. Bush je Severno Korejo, Iran in Irak označil za "os zla", kar je vznemirilo evropske in druge zaveznike, ki so se bali, da bi Združene države lahko začele enostransko delovati v svoji vojni proti terorizmu.

Ekonomsko

  • Afganistansko gospodarstvo je že uničila sovjetska okupacija v osemdesetih in kasnejša državljanska vojna v devetdesetih letih. Glede na slabo gospodarsko stanje Afganistana in pomanjkanje osrednje oblasti so teroristične skupine ugotovili, da je država učinkovito zatočišče sovražnih vlad.
  • Britanski premier Tony Blair je trdil, da je Afganistan postal teroristično zatočišče predvsem zato, ker Zahod ni pomagal Afganistanu po umiku Sovjetov v začetku devetdesetih let. Da bi preprečili, da bi se Afganistan po vojaški kampanji proti talibanom vrnil v teroristično zatočišče, so ZDA in Evropska unija priznale, da bodo za obnovo afganistanske infrastrukture in vladnih zmogljivosti potrebne milijarde dolarjev.

AČeprav je terorizem v vsakdanjem življenju evropskih držav že od šestdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja, so napadi 11. septembra 2001 na ZDA pretresli Evropsko unijo. Dva ugrabljena civilna letala sta udarila v stolpe Svetovnega trgovinskega centra v New Yorku, pri čemer je na tisoče ljudi umrlo in poškodovano. Tretje ugrabljeno letalo je strmoglavilo v Pentagon v Arlingtonu v Virginiji blizu Washingtona, medtem ko je četrto letalo padlo na polje v Pensilvaniji, kar je še povečalo število žrtev. Poleg tega, da je bil napad edina najsmrtonosnejša teroristična epizoda, ki so jo doživele ZDA, je dokazal tudi potencial terorističnih skupin, da industrializiranemu svetu povzročijo ogromno škode. Voditelji Evropske unije so hitro ugotovili, da bi lahko, če bi teroristična skupina uničila Združene države, prav tako zlahka izvedle katastrofalne napade na evropske države.

Državljani Evrope so ZDA izrazili sočutje. Britanski premier Tony Blair (1997-) je v svojem govoru po napadu 11. septembra izjavil: "Grozodejstvo je bil napad na vse nas." Svetovni trgovinski center je bil dom podjetjem in državljanom z vsega sveta. Glede na mednarodno sestavo Svetovnega trgovinskega centra so napadi ubili več Evropejcev kot kateri koli prejšnji teroristični napad na evropska tla. Kot odgovor na pozive ameriškega predsednika Georgea W. Busha (2001-) k mednarodni koaliciji za boj proti mednarodnemu terorizmu so članice Evropske unije objavile svojo odločenost, da bodo pomagale ZDA. Po besedah ​​Tonyja Blaira: "Svet razume, da seveda obstajajo nevarnosti pri delovanju, vendar so nevarnosti nedelovanja veliko, veliko večje."

Kmalu po napadih so teroristični strokovnjaki opozorili savdskega milijonarja Osamo bin Ladna kot izumitelja terorizma. Organizacija Al Kaida Osame bin Ladna, ki je delovala znotraj meja Afganistana, je že prej izvajala napade na ameriško vojsko v Savdski Arabiji, veleposlaništva ZDA v Keniji in Tanzaniji ter USS Cole v pristanišču Jemen. Strokovnjaki so trdili, da je edina teroristična skupina, ki bi lahko izvedla tako zapleten in usklajen napad, mreža Al Kaide. Zaradi velikih financ bin Ladna je veljalo, da ima Al-Kaida svetovni doseg. Preiskava, ki so jo izvedle ZDA, in kasnejši obveščevalni podatki so prišli do podobnih zaključkov. Po prejemu dokazov o vpletenosti bin Ladena od ameriških oblasti se je Evropska unija (EU) pridružila pozivom ZDA, naj afganistansko talibansko vodstvo izroči Osamo bin Ladna, ki je prebival v tej državi. Po prvotni zavrnitvi talibanov so ZDA in njihovi evropski zavezniki zagrozili, da se bodo zavezniki, če talibani ne izročijo bin Ladena, odzvali z vojaško silo.

Po zavrnitvi talibanov so ZDA in EU začele vojaško kampanjo proti Afganistanu. Evropska unija se je v kampanji proti terorizmu zavezala, da bo stala ob strani ZDA. V nekaj kratkih tednih je afganistanska opozicijska skupina, znana kot Severno zavezništvo, razbila sile Talibanov in Al Kaide v Afganistanu. Z zračno in kopensko podporo zavezniških letal in posebnih sil je Severno zavezništvo hitro prevzelo nadzor nad glavnim mestom Kabulom. Kmalu so se začeli mirovni pogovori glede prihodnje obnove države in določb o začasni vladi. Čeprav zavezništvo še ni ujelo samega bin Ladena, so ZDA in njihovi zavezniki uspešno pobili ali ujeli več sto pripadnikov Al-Kaide.

Čeprav je EU ostala zavezana boju proti terorizmu, je podpora EU ukrepom ZDA po zmagi proti talibanom začela upadati. Mnoge države EU so bile pripravljene podpreti le omejene ukrepe proti terorističnim skupinam. Te države so verjele, da bo s padcem talibanov konec vojaške faze proti terorizmu. Ameriški predsednik George W. Bush pa je izjavil, da bi ZDA lahko nadaljevale vojaško fazo kampanje v druge države, ki sponzorirajo teror. Zlasti so ZDA začele predlagati, da je Irak naslednji na ciljnem seznamu. EU je zaskrbljena, da je zaradi uspeha v afganistanski vojni ZDA bolj verjetno enostransko uporabile silo proti kateri koli državi, za katero menijo, da je podpornica terorizma. Poleg tega je EU postajala zaskrbljena zaradi ameriškega ravnanja s terorističnimi zaporniki, zlasti glede tega, ali se lahko tem zapornikom grozi smrtna kazen. Čeprav EU še naprej podpira ameriška protiteroristična prizadevanja, se je moč koalicije zmanjšala, saj se bojijo enostranskosti ZDA na evropski celini.


9 - Odgovor na 11. september

To poglavje preučuje, ali so sistematični teroristični napadi Al Kaide na Svetovni trgovinski center in Pentagon 11. septembra 2001 ter politični in taktični odzivi mednarodne skupnosti na te napade povzročili grotovski trenutek, ki je privedel do novih pravil običajnega mednarodnega prava glede uporabe sile proti nestandardnim akterjem. Mednarodno sodišče je v zadevi iz Nikaragve leta 1986 že menilo, da se države žrtve ne morejo zateči k sili kot odgovor na napade nedržavnih akterjev, razen če te akterje dejansko nadzoruje teritorialna država. Nekaj ​​dni po napadih 11. septembra pa je Varnostni svet ZN sprejel Resolucijo 1368, ki je veljala za splošno potrditev pravice do uporabe sile pri samoobrambi proti Al Kaidi v Afganistanu, mednarodnih protestov pa je bilo malo, ko so ZDA kmalu zatem napadel Afganistan. S poznejšo uporabo brezpilotnih letal brez posadke za lov na teroriste Al Kaide v Afganistanu, Pakistanu, Jemnu in Somaliji se odziv na 11. september ne nanaša le na radikalno spremembo teroristične grožnje, temveč tudi na tehnologijo za boj proti njim. Profesor Ian Johnstone s šole za pravo in diplomacijo Fletcher se je za opis tega razvoja skliceval na izraz "ustavni trenutek", zato ugotavlja, da je "v nasprotju s tem, kjer je zakon veljal leta 1986 ... danes pošteno sklepati, da se lahko proti samoobrambi sklicujemo nedržavni akterji. " To poglavje preučuje veljavnost domneve profesorja Johnstonea.

Uporaba sile proti nedržavnim akterjem pred 11. septembrom

Inherentna pravica do uporabe sile pri samoobrambi po mednarodnem pravu je kodificirana v 51. členu Ustanovne listine ZN. Listina vsebuje pomembno omejitev te pravice, ki dovoljuje uporabo sile v samoobrambi samo »v primeru oboroženega napada«. Listina ZN ne opredeljuje "oboroženega napada", vendar je Mednarodno sodišče v zadevi Nikaragva razsodilo, da le "najhujše oblike uporabe sile" pomenijo oborožen napad. Po mnenju Mednarodnega sodišča mora napad veljati za oborožen napad, ki sproži pravico do samoobrambe, in mora doseči določen obseg nasilja nad "zgolj obmejnimi incidenti". Mednarodno pravosodno sodišče pa je tudi predlagalo, da lahko niz majhnih napadov skupaj predstavlja oborožen napad.


Kako je oblikovanje Pentagona rešilo življenja 11. septembra

11. septembra 2001 ob 9:37 je 62-letni uslužbenec Pentagona in upokojeni specialist za letalske sile sedel v prometu zahodno od Pentagona, ko je ropotajoči reaktivni motor šel tako nizko, da je prestregel radijsko anteno avto za njim.

Letalo, ugrabljeno letalo American Airlines leta 77, je prerezalo tri svetlobne drogove na parkirišču v Pentagonu, preden se je zaletelo v prvo nadstropje stavbe in eksplodiralo v ognjeni krogli, v hipu pa je v trenutku ubilo 125 ljudi in vseh 64 potnikov na krovu, vključno z pet ugrabiteljev.

Čeprav je bilo dejanje grozljivo in so bile vse izgube na ta dan uničujoče, je analiza strukturnih poškodb pokazala, da bi bilo število smrtnih žrtev v Pentagonu lahko veliko slabše, če ne za nekatere kritične inženirske odločitve, sprejete 60 let prej.

Ironično, gradnja Pentagona se je začela 11. septembra 1941. Čeprav Amerika še ni vstopila v drugo svetovno vojno, je predsednik Franklin D. Roosevelt vedel, da potrebuje domačo bazo za bližajoče se vojaške operacije v bližini glavnega mesta države. Nujna vojna je pomenila, da je bil Pentagon dokončan v rekordnem času in samo 16 mesecih z uporabo 15.000 gradbenih delavcev.

Jeklo je bilo racionirano za vojna prizadevanja, zato je bil Pentagon zgrajen skoraj v celoti iz armiranega betona, vključno s 41.000 betonskimi stebri in betonskimi klančinami namesto stopnic, ki povezujejo pet nadstropij stavbe. Pentagon, dokončan leta 1943, ostaja največja nizka poslovna stavba na svetu s 6,5 milijona kvadratnih čevljev pisarniških prostorov z do 26.000 delavci.

Ko je bil Pentagon zgrajen, nihče ni vedel, da bo postal ikonični spomenik ameriške vojaške moči 𠅊li tarča. Pravzaprav so arhitekti mislili, da bo po vojni opuščen in se spremenil v ogromno skladišče za shranjevanje zapisov. Njihova napoved je bila napačna, a naključna.

Mislijo, da bi moral Pentagon na dolge razdalje shraniti velike zaloge zapisov, inženirski korpus ameriške vojske je ustvaril presežno moč in strukturne odpuščanja, ki bi na koncu 11. septembra rešila stotine in potencialno tisoče življenj.

Satelitsko sliko rekonstrukcije Pentagona je 7. septembra 2001 posnel satelit IKONOS nad Washingtonom štiri dni pred terorističnim napadom.  

Space Imaging/Getty Images

Donald Dusenberry je gradbeni inženir, ki je soavtor pomembnega poročila za Ameriško združenje gradbenih inženirjev o škodi, ki jo je Pentagon utrpel 11. septembra, in naukih, pridobljenih pri njegovi odpornosti. Dusenberry je bil nekaj dni po padcu stolpov dvojčkov na Ground Zero v New Yorku in si nekaj tednov kasneje ogledal mesto nesreče v Pentagonu.

On in njegovi sodelavci so odkrili, ko so skrbno dokumentirali in analizirali škodo, ki je bila povzročena Pentagonu, da pa čeprav je bilo v ognjenem zrušitvi popolnoma uničenih 26 cementnih stebrov v prvem nadstropju in 15 drugih močno poškodovanih, zgornja nadstropja Pentagona niso ’t takoj sesuti. Pravzaprav je minilo 30 minut, preden se je zrušil del stavbe neposredno nad krajem nesreče, kar je preživelim omogočilo več kot dovolj časa za pobeg.

Neverjetno, da med delnim propadom drugega do petega nadstropja ni bil ubit niti en delavec Pentagona. Primerjajte to s tragično usodo tisočev ljudi, ujetih v svetovni trgovini, ki niso mogli pobegniti, preden so stolpi padli.

Približno 800 ljudi je delalo v oddelku ali “wedge ” Pentagona, kjer je do udarca prišlo 11. septembra zjutraj, kar je veliko manj kot običajno. Na srečo je bil ta klin pred kratkim temeljito prenovljen in le del delavcev se je preselil nazaj v svoje pisarne. Če bi letalo ta dan zadelo kateri koli drugi del stavbe, bi lahko bilo na poti leta kar 4500 zaposlenih v Pentagonu.

Skoraj nemogoče si je predstavljati, s kakšno silo je let 77 udaril v prostranstvo Pentagona. Boeing 757 je po podatkih zapisovalnika letov tehtal približno 82,4 metrične tone in je potoval s hitrostjo več kot 530 km / h.

Največjo škodo na stavbi so povzročile rezerve goriva letala v krilih in trupu trupa. Let 77 je vzletel z mednarodnega letališča Dulles v Washingtonu ob 8.20 na poti proti Los Angelesu s težkimi rezervoarji goriva za tek na smučeh. Večina tega goriva je bila še porabljena, ko je letalo udarilo v Pentagon.

Po analizi Dusenberryja in njegove ekipe so se lahka krila in odseki letala pri udarcu skoraj takoj odtrgali, toda rezervoarji za težko gorivo so se prebili skozi prvo nadstropje in ustvarili tok naplavin, ki je raztrgal zgradbo, kot plaz, ki pušča pot uničenja dvakrat večjo od letala.

Dusenberry primerja letalo Boeing 757 z vodnim balonom.

�lon sam po sebi ni zelo močan, če pa ga napolnite z vodo in ga vržete v nekaj, zadene in deluje precej močno, & pravi#Dusenberry. “Ta gibljiva masa, ki jo mora ustaviti predmet, na katero zadene, povzroči nastanek sile. ”

Dusenberry in njegovi kolegi so želeli ugotoviti, kako je drugo nadstropje Pentagona ostalo po tem, ko je bilo na desetine stebrov v prvem nadstropju uničenih ali hudo poškodovanih. Zgornji deli so se podrli šele po hudi poškodbi zaradi požara.

Agenti FBI, gasilci, reševalci in inženirji delajo na mestu nesreče v Pentagonu 14. septembra 2001, kjer je ugrabljen let American Airlines trčil v stavbo tri dni prej. Teroristični napad je povzročil veliko škodo na zahodni steni stavbe in sledil podobnim napadom na Svetovni trgovinski center v New Yorku. (Fotografija: Tech. Sgt. Cedric H. Rudisill/DoD/Getty Images)

Strokovni zaključek ekipe je bil, da sta dve strateški oblikovni odločitvi, sprejeti 60 let prej, držali Pentagon pokonci. Prvi je bil povezan z ojačanjem betonskih stebrov, ki držijo tla in strope. Odkrili so, da je spiralna armatura rešila dan.

Pri gradnji z betonom so v konstrukcijo vgrajene jeklene armaturne palice, ki ji dajejo dodatno trdnost. V sodobni gradnji bi bil betonski steber verjetno podprt s široko razmaknjenimi vodoravnimi obroči armatur, ki potekajo navpično navzgor po njegovem jedru. Toda v štiridesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja je bil standard uporaba neprekinjene zanke tesno spiralne armature.

Prednost spiralnih okrepitev je bila takoj očitna ekipi Dusenberry ’s. Znotraj zacrnjenega in izdolbenega pisarniškega prostora v prvem nadstropju so našli močno upognjene stebre, kjer je bila zunanja plast betona odrezana, vendar je betonsko jedro znotraj spiralne armature ostalo nedotaknjeno. Neverjetno, ti deformirani, striženi stebri so še stali.

“Če bi namesto spirale uporabili obroče, pričakujem, da predstava ne bi bila tako dobra, ” pravi Dusenberry. “Zagotovo niso pričakovali terorističnih napadov ali eksplozij ali česa podobnega. To je srečen rezultat tega, kar so takrat počeli iz drugih razlogov. ”

Druga stvar, ki je po napadu držala Pentagon skupaj, je bil način armiranja talnega in stropnega betona. Najprej so bili podporni stebri v vsakem nadstropju razmeroma tesno razporejeni z največjimi razdaljami 20 čevljev. Tako so morali betonski nosilci in nosilci nad njimi segati le na kratke razdalje.

In znotraj teh betonskih nosilcev so inženirji prevozili dolge odseke armatur, ki so se prekrivali od enega nosilca do drugega. Dusenberry pravi, da so ravno te prekrivajoče se jeklene opore držale težke odseke poškodovanega betonskega stropa, tudi če so se spodnji stebri podrli.

“Ta jeklena armatura lahko deluje kot vzmetenje, ki drži drobljeni beton v zgornjem nadstropju, & pravi#Dusenberry. 𠇎Čeprav ne deluje več kot žarek, ga obesi kot vrvica za oblačila, ki obesi oblačila. ”

Pentagon je edinstvena zgradba, petstranska betonska trdnjava, katere arhitekturni slog že zdavnaj ni več v modi, če je sploh bil v modi. Toda Dusenberry pravi, da se lahko sodobni arhitekti in inženirji veliko naučijo iz lekcij 11. septembra, najpomembnejši pa je kritični pomen odvečnosti in duktilnosti.

Odvečnost je načrtovanje alternativnih poti obremenitve, če se primarni konstrukcijski elementi izgubijo ali uničijo. Pentagon je to naredil s tesnimi konfiguracijami stebrov in prekrivajočimi se armaturami v nosilcih. Duktilnost je sposobnost konstrukcijskih elementov, da se upognejo pri ekstremnih obremenitvah, vendar se ne zlomijo, kar kaže spiralna armatura v ohranjenih stebrih Pentagona.

�nes se načrtujejo stavbe ob upoštevanju, da bi lahko prišlo do dogodka, ” pravi Dusenberry. “Ne nujno škodljiv dogodek, ampak tisti, ki poškoduje kritični strukturni element. Zgradbo lahko na primer oblikujete tako, da bo zgornje nadstropje, če izgubite spodnji stolpec, dejansko obesilo stavbo pod njo. ”  

Dave Roos je samostojni pisatelj s sedežem v ZDA in Mehiki. Dave, dolgoletni sodelavec pri HowStuffWorks, je bil objavljen tudi v New York Times, Los Angeles Times in Newsweek.


Zanimiva zgodovina sistema za nujne primere 911

Uvedba sistema 911 po vsej državi je bila težka naloga, ki je zahvaljujoč dobrodelni fundaciji prišla le do cilja.

Prvotno se je pojavila različica te objave Tedium, dvakrat tedensko glasilo, ki lovi konec dolgega repa.

Od vseh stvari, ki jih je William Shatner naredil v svoji karieri in mdashcaptain zvezdne ladje Podjetje, veteranski policist, popolnoma igriva muza za Bena Foldsa, dokaj dober visokotonec, ker je star 86 let & mdash ena stvar, ki mi je najbolj ostala, so njegova leta Reševanje 911, zgodnji resničnostni šov, ki je bil Američani najbolj iskani (večinoma) brez kaznivega dejanja in Nerešene skrivnosti z jasnimi rešitvami kot dan.

Del tega je moja starost & mdash Odraščal sem v obdobju, ko sem redno gledal takšno oddajo na CBS in Zvezdne steze mislil je na kapetana Jean-Luca Picarda iz Združene zveze planetov (ker itak ne govori angleško). Toda pri tej oddaji je bilo super to, da se je zdelo, da praznuje junaštvo in ne osredotočenost na zlikovce, kar je za to obdobje resničnostne televizije redkost. Včasih so zgodbe razmeroma manjše, včasih so stvar življenja in smrti. A ne bi ga bilo, če ne bi bilo trdega dela, ki je bilo v sistem 911 vloženo manj kot dve desetletji prej.

In priti tja ni bilo lahko.

Občinski problem

Zanimivost Združenih držav je, da so velike, zmedene in polne velikih in majhnih občin. In vse jih je na isti strani z nekaj tako preprostega, kot je koda za klic v sili, res grozljivo.

Jasno pa je bilo, da je tak sistem nujno potreben, ker so ljudje klicali naključna mesta, da bi dobili nujno pomoč. Članek iz leta 1921 iz Javni servis revija poudarja zapletenost razmer in ugotavlja, da je bolnišnica Bellevue v New Yorku sprejela kar 2500 klicev v sili na dan.

In vsako mesto in občina sta drugačna. Odličen način za razmislek o tem je sodoben primer: sosedska spletna storitev EveryBlock je le v nekaj mestih, veliko večja NextDoor pa je povsod. Razlog za to je osnovna funkcionalna razlika: Ker se EveryBlock opira na javne podatke, pridobljene od občin, mora teoretično sklepati posle z vsakim posameznim mestom v državi, kar omejuje njegovo lestvico.

Zdaj pa si samo zamislite težave, ki so jih patchwork občin ustvarili v dneh pred letom 911. En primer sem opazil iz leta 1946 Washington Post članek, ki opisuje žensko, v kateri je gorelo stanovanje, poudarja rigamarole klicev v sili pred 911: "[S] je zaman poskušal doseči operaterja, tako da je poklical številko za klic v sili" 311. " V svojem navdušenju je pozabila številko centra za nadzor požara Union 1122. "

Leta 1958 je neka Newyorčanka po imenu Rosamund Reinhardt opozorila na resnost problema, ko je poskušala poklicati požar v bližnjem stanovanju. Toda poklicala je najlažjo številko, ki jo je poznala: 0, za operaterja.

To ni dobro delovalo, ker je nekdo, ki živi v najbolj obremenjenem mestu v državi, prisiljena je bila tekmovati z vsako drugo osebo, ki je takrat klicala operaterja, kar pomeni, da so ji vedno padale linije. V New York Times V pismu urednici je ugotovila, da jo je nerodnost sistema ogrozila.

"Razlog, ki se mi je zdel tako dolg, je bil v tem, da sem odkrila, da je bil čas, ki sem ga izgubila pri telefoniranju, ravno dovolj, da sem preprečila izhod iz stanovanja, saj je bila dvorana zaradi dima neprehodna," se je spominjala.

Očitno je preživela. Toda položaj je zanjo postavil neverjetno očitno vprašanje: "Ali ne bi bilo mogoče prekiniti faze operaterja, če bi neposredno poklicali kakšno vnaprej dogovorjeno številko za klic v sili?"

To ni bil nenavaden koncept. Združeno kraljestvo, ki je imelo trimestno številko za klic v sili v Londonu že leta 1937 & mdash999, natančneje & mdash, je imelo veliko lažji čas, da je vse skupaj delovalo. Sistem, ki ga vodi pošta, je v veliki meri naredil, kar naj bi.

Zakaj torej to ni veljalo za ZDA? Preprosto, žoga se ni premaknila dovolj hitro v tej splošni smeri.

Gasilska industrija je že dolgo razpravljala o vprašanjih, kako bo telefonski sistem deloval v nujnih primerih in mdašin, ker so požarni alarmi temeljili na sistemu. Članek iz leta 1920 v Četrtletnik Nacionalnega združenja za zaščito pred požaromje na primer izpostavil razpravo o tem, ali je treba telegrafske alarme zamenjati s telefonskimi. V petdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja so nekatera mesta (zlasti Miami) na mestne ulice namestila fizične telefone za enkratno uporabo, tako da so se ljudje lahko po nujnih primerih pogovarjali neposredno z gasilci. (Ta nastavitev je seveda povzročila veliko lažnih alarmov, skupaj s številnimi polemikami.)

Toda sredi petdesetih let so uradniki iz Mednarodnega združenja gasilskih poveljnikov (ne Nacionalnega združenja gasilskih načelnikov, kot se včasih navaja, ker to ni organizacija) začeli uveljavljati enotno nacionalno telefonsko številko za javnost poklicati v nujnih primerih. Žoga se je skotalila po hribu navzdol. Sčasoma.


Odločitve, ne dogodki, oblikovani voditelji po 11. septembru

Deset let po štirih letalskih nesrečah v New Yorku, Washingtonu in Pensilvaniji mnogi razmišljajo o tem, kako so ti dogodki spremenili potek zgodovine. Toda 11. september ni spremenil zgodovine: naši odzivi nanjo - v dobrem in slabem - so spremenili zgodovino. Čeprav so mnogi analizirali dejanja naših nacionalnih voditeljev v odgovor na te teroristične napade, bi se rad v tem prispevku osredotočil na dejanja voditeljev, ki niso prišli na naslovnice, a so naredili razliko. Vsi se lahko učimo iz njihovega zgleda.

Na primer Joe Kearns Goodwin. Kearns, ki je leta 2001 diplomiral na fakulteti, se je 12. septembra istega leta prijavil v vojsko. Na vprašanje gostitelja David Gregory, ki ga je voditelj David Gregory v oddaji NBC Meet the Press vprašal, kako je 11. september opredelil njegovo generacijo, je Goodwin odvrnil in dejal, da 11. september ne opredeljuje njegove generacije več, kot je Pearl Harbour opredelil največjo generacijo, ki se je borila v drugi svetovni vojni.

Goodwin, nekdanji poveljnik vojske, ki je opravil dve turneji, eno v Iraku in drugo v Afganistanu, se je odzval kot eden, ki je bil na vodilnem položaju. Dogodki ne opredeljujejo dogodkov vodje, ustvarjajo kontekst za odgovor voditelja. Ko so se dogodki razpletli, se je Goodwin odzval z odločitvijo, da bo služil.

To razlikovanje je potrebno, če upoštevamo vlogo vodje v krizi - še posebej, ker se zdijo leta prejšnjega desetletja tako mračna, uničena, kot sta bili dve vojni, mračno gospodarstvo in bedno visoka stopnja brezposelnosti. Če smo v perma krizi, odgovor ni, da se zadržujemo na negativnem, ampak da se odločimo kako se bomo odzvali. Za posledice svojih dejanj v takih trenutkih moramo biti odgovorni. Zgodovina zagotovo bo.

Razmislite o primerih vodenja in storitev, ki so bili vidni v nekaj minutah po napadu na stolpe dvojčkov, ko so prvi odreagirali na prizorišče. Kot vemo zdaj iz številnih preiskav, so gasilski uradniki v New Yorku kmalu vedeli, da stolpov ni mogoče rešiti, a da bi življenje lahko bilo - zato se je toliko gasilcev pognalo po obsojenih nebotičnikih, da bi pripeljalo čim več ljudi varnost. Približno 16.000 delavcev je bilo evakuiranih, mnogi so dolžni svoje življenje 343 gasilcem in reševalcem, ki so umrli ob padcu stavb.

Spomnite se tudi več kot 2,3 milijona ljudi, ki so služili v tujini v Iraku in Afganistanu. Več kot 7400 je bilo ubitih, več deset tisoč hudo ranjenih, morda pa se jih je večina za vedno spremenila zaradi spominov na dogajanje na bojišču. Ti dogodki so jih spremenili, vendar jih ti dogodki ne opredeljujejo. Vsi so bili prostovoljci, ko so se dogodki zgodili, odločali so se, kako se bodo odzvali in kako bodo vodili.

11. september 2001 je bil pomemben dan v zgodovini in strašna tragedija. Desetletje, ki je sledilo, je pustilo mračno dediščino. Videlo pa se je tudi, kakšno vodstvo izhaja iz tega, da službo postavimo pred sebe.

Ko se spominjamo spominov iz 11. septembra - kjer smo bili, ljudi, ki smo jih izgubili, in vsega, kar je prišlo potem - razmislimo tudi o tem.


Takojšnji svetovni odziv na 11. september

Po napadih 11. septembra so ljudje po vsem svetu ob žalovanju, solidarnosti, sočutju in prijateljstvu z ljudmi Združenih držav stali z ramo ob rami. Tukaj je nekaj tistih mednarodnih odzivov, tako organiziranih kot spontanih, ki so se zgodili v dneh po 11. septembru 2001.

V London, "Star Spangled Banner", ki je bil odigran med menjavo straže v Buckinghamski palači, medtem ko je promet v bližnjem The Mallu ustavil.

V Peking, veleposlaništvo ZDA je obiskalo več deset tisoč ljudi, ki so na pločniku spredaj pustili rože, voščilnice, pogrebne vence in ročno napisane sožalje.

V Moskva, ženske, ki niso govorile angleško in nikoli niso bile v ZDA, so bile posnete na filmu, ki je jokal pred improviziranim poklonom na pločniku, vsaka posamezna cerkev in samostan v Romuniji pa je imela spominsko molitev.

V Francija, znani časopis, Le Mondeje objavil naslov »Vsi smo Američani«.

Na Bližnjem vzhodu sta oba Izraelski predsednika in Palestinski vodja je obsodil napade in predstavil krvodajalstvo.

Kuvajt postavljeni v vrsto, da bi darovali tudi kri. Jordanci podpisana pisma sočutja.

V Teheran, cel stadion ljudi, zbranih na nogometni tekmi, je minuto molka opazoval, v Turčiji pa so zastave plapolale na pol štaba.

V Berlin, 200.000 ljudi je zbralo ulice, ki vodijo do Brandenburških vrat.

Tisoč kilometrov južno, v Dubrovnik, Hrvaška, so si šolarji privoščili počitek, da bi v tišini sklonili glave.

V Dublin, trgovine in pivnice so bile ob državnem dnevu žalovanja zaprte, ljudje pa so v triurni vrsti čakali, da se podpišejo v knjigo sožalja.

V Švedska, Norveška in Finska, tramvaji in avtobusi so se ustavili v poklon, v Rusiji pa so televizijske in radijske postaje utihnile v spomin na nedolžne mrtve.

V Azerbajdžan, Japonska, Grenlandija, Bolgarija in Tajiskitan, ljudje so se zbrali na trgih, da bi prižgali sveče, godrnjali dobre želje in molili. In v Pretoria, Južna Afrika, majhni otroci, ki so sedeli na ramenih svojih staršev in držali mini ameriške zastave.

Gasilci v Madžarska na svoje tovornjake privezali črne trakove, prišli so gasilci Južna Afrika letelo rdeče, belo in modro ter vstopili gasilci Poljska so zaslišale svoje sirene in nekega toplega popoldneva sprostile kolektivno jokanje.

Kubanci ponudili medicinsko opremo. Etiopljani ponujal molitve. Kirgizistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan in Kazahstan ponudili svoj zračni prostor, na desetine drugih svetovnih voditeljev pa je poklicalo Belo hišo, da jim ponudijo podporo.

Stotine tisoč ljudi notri Kanada, Albanija in Sierra Leone korakali po ulicah v znak solidarnosti, mošeje pa v Bangladeš, Jemen, Pakistan, Libija in Sudan je trepetal obsodbo duhovnikov na te "strahopetne" in "neislamske" napade.

Libanonski generali, sklicani, da podpišejo pisma sočutja, in v Italija, Je papež Janez Pavel II v molitvi padel na kolena.

Albanija, Irska, Izrael, Kanada, Hrvaška, Južna Koreja in Češka vsi razglašeni državni dnevi žalovanja in vseskozi so odmevali legendarni zvonovi Notre Dame Pariz.

V Italija, so vozniki dirkalnikov, ki so se pripravljali na prihajajočo Veliko nagrado Italije, utišali svoje motorje in v London, na stotine je tiho stalo med opoldanskimi zvončki Big Bena.

V Belgija, ljudje so se držali za roke, tvorijo človeško verigo pred bruseljskim Svetovnim trgovinskim centrom in sedemnajst časovnih pasov stran, tujci Indonezija zbrali na plaži, da bi molili.

V Indija, otroci so prilepili znake z napisom: »To je napad na vse nas« in v Avstrija, soglasno zvonili cerkveni zvonovi.


Outdone by Reality

Ten years ago Don DeLillo wrote that the attacks of Sept. 11 would change “the way we think and act, moment to moment, week to week, for unknown weeks and months to come, and steely years.” The historian Taylor Branch spoke of a possible “turning point against a generation of cynicism for all of us,” and Roger Rosenblatt argued in Time magazine that “one good thing could come from this horror: it could spell the end of the age of irony.”

They were wrong, of course. We know now that the New Normal was very much like the Old Normal, at least in terms of the country’s arts and entertainment. Blockbuster video stores (yes, that’s how many of us watched movies back then) placed warnings on some films — “in light of the events of Sept. 11, please note that this product contains scenes that may be disturbing to some viewers” — but violent pictures continued to top most-rented lists. Despite rumors of their demise, black humor and satire, too, remained alive and well on “Saturday Night Live” and The Onion, which ran headlines like “Rest of Country Temporarily Feels Deep Affection for New York.”

Ten years later, it is even clearer that 9/11 has not provoked a seismic change in the arts. While there were shifts in the broader culture — like an increasingly toxic polarization in our politics, and an alarming impulse to privilege belief over facts — such developments have had less to do with 9/11 than with the ballooning of partisanship during the Bush and Obama administrations, and with unrelated forces like technology, which gave us the social media revolution of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, and which magnified the forces of democratization, relativism and subjectivity.

Economic worries — sparked by 9/11 and amplified by the 2008 Wall Street meltdown — accelerated trends already in place, including the Internet’s undermining of old business models in music and publishing. Warier than ever of taking risks, Hollywood looked even harder for special-effects extravaganzas that could readily find a global audience, and Broadway doubled down on shows starring big-name celebrities that could guarantee advance box office.

In response to 9/11, the artistic community quickly mobilized. Jane Rosenthal, Craig Hatkoff and Robert De Niro put together the Tribeca Film Festival (which had its 10th anniversary this spring) to help revitalize a ravaged Lower Manhattan. And musicians including Paul McCartney, Keith Richards, Mick Jagger, David Bowie, the Who and Jay-Z did a benefit concert at Madison Square Garden.

There was also an outpouring of art, like Bruce Springsteen’s “The Rising,” Neil Young’s “Let’s Roll” and Anne Nelson’s earnest play “The Guys.” Such works served useful purposes — cathartic commemoration, therapeutic expression, public rallying — but in retrospect, many of them now feel sentimental or heavy-handed. Later on, anger over the war in Iraq and worries about the erosion of civil liberties under the Bush war on terror would produce a wave of politically engaged movies and plays — including Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” and David Hare’s “Stuff Happens” unfortunately, a lot of it turned out to be obvious or shrill. Terrorist plots popped up on TV shows like “Law & Order” and “CSI: NY,” while new counterterrorism-themed shows like “The Unit,” “Sleeper Cell” and the forthcoming “Homeland” proliferated.

Some eloquent or daring works of art about 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq eventually did emerge — most notably, Kathryn Bigelow’s harrowing film “The Hurt Locker,” about a bomb disposal squad in Iraq Gregory Burke’s haunting play “Black Watch,” based on interviews with soldiers who served in Iraq with a Scottish regiment Amy Waldman’s novel “The Submission,” which explored the fallout of 9/11 on American attitudes toward Muslims Donald Margulies’s play “Time Stands Still,” about the Iraq war’s effects on two journalists and their relationship and Eric Fischl’s “Tumbling Woman,” a bronze sculpture commemorating those who fell or jumped to their deaths from the twin towers (it was removed from Rockefeller Center after complaints that it was too disturbing, too soon).

Compelling as such works are, however, none were really game-changing. None possess the vaulting ambition of, say, Francis Ford Coppola’s Vietnam epic “Apocalypse Now,” or the sweep of Mr. DeLillo’s “Underworld,” which captured the entire cold war era. Instead, these 9/11 works feel like blips on the cultural landscape — they neither represent a new paradigm nor suggest that the attacks were a cultural watershed. Perhaps this is because 9/11 did not really change daily life for much of the country. Perhaps it’s because our A.D.D. nation — after the assassinations of J.F.K., R.F.K. and M.L.K. in the ’60s, and decades of violence on 24-hour news — has become increasingly inured to shock.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

Some critics have argued that not enough time has passed for artists to gain sufficient perspective on 9/11. Tolstoy, after all, wrote about Napoleon’s invasion of Russia more than 50 years later in this respect, it may be decades before larger narratives (concerning American vulnerability and American decline) surface as animating ideas in ambitious works of art. Then again, Picasso created “Guernica” in 1937, only weeks after the savage bombing of that town during the Spanish Civil War.

In the meantime, a lot of post-9/11 culture seems like a cut-and-paste version of pre-9/11 culture — or a more extreme version of it. Indeed, pop culture has slid so far into the slough of celebrity worship and escapist fluff that the antics of the Kardashian sisters now pass as entertainment. Sensationalism continues its march, and so does the blurring between news and gossip. Reality shows, which took off in 2000 with “Survivor,” continued to snowball in popularity. James Patterson, Michael Crichton and John Grisham continued to dominate best-seller lists. Even things thought, after 9/11, to be verboten — like blowing up New York for a big-screen thrill — soon made a comeback: In “Cloverfield” (2008), the Statue of Liberty is decapitated as a monster trashes the city.

For that matter, the last decade often seemed to be all about recycling. Old television shows (“Get Smart,” “Miami Vice”) and comic books (“Spider-Man,” “X-Men”) were recycled into films. Old movies (“Arthur,” “The Karate Kid”) were remade. Jukebox musicals were assembled onstage from old pop songs (“Jersey Boys” and “Rock of Ages”), and vintage soul and roots rock enjoyed a revival.

“Instead of being the threshold to the future,” the critic Simon Reynolds writes in his astute new book, “Retromania,” the 2000s “were dominated by the ‘re-’ prefix: revivals, reissues, remakes, re-enactments.”

In fact, several prominent novels dealing with 9/11 drew heavily from earlier classics. Ian McEwan’s “Saturday,” which captures the precariousness of post-9/11 daily life, reads like a contemporary variation on Virginia Woolf’s “Mrs. Dalloway.” Jonathan Safran Foer’s “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” features a hero named Oskar, who resembles the hero of the same name in Gunter Grass’s “The Tin Drum.” And Mohsin Hamid’s chilling novel “The Reluctant Fundamentalist” — which recounts the effect 9/11 has on a successful Pakistani immigrant — borrowed the structure and central themes of Camus’s novel “The Fall.” Why this eagerness to pour new content into old vessels? In “Retromania,” Mr. Reynolds suggests technology in the 2000s contributed to a “fading of the artistic imperative to be original.” In the case of 9/11 novels, familiar forms may also provide narrative strategies for artists trying to subdue an event that seemed to defy representation — one that reminds us of Philip Roth’s 1961 observation that American reality stupefies and infuriates the writer because it is “continually outdoing our talents.”

No doubt this is why many powerful works to emerge about 9/11 and its aftermath have been documentary or fact-based. In the past, with traumatic subjects like Vietnam and AIDS, this has been the trajectory over time: News accounts and witness testimony give way to memoirs, which in turn give way to more metaphorical works of the imagination.

While writers struggled to find words to describe the unimaginable, photographers captured the devastation of 9/11 with visceral eloquence. “Here Is New York: A Democracy of Photographs,” a project that invited everyone from professional photographers to regular New Yorkers to share their images, created a choral portrait of the city through personal acts of bearing witness.

The Power of Bare Facts

In terms of narrative scope and harrowing drama, no novel has yet to match “The Looming Tower,” Lawrence Wright’s nonfiction account of the events that led to 9/11. Terry McDermott’s book “Perfect Soldiers” drew a portrait of the real 9/11 hijackers that was far more compelling than the crude jihadi stereotype in John Updike’s novel “Terrorist.” Alex Gibney’s documentary “Taxi to the Dark Side” similarly provided a more indelible portrait of the dark side of the war on terror than such fictional films as “Rendition” and “Redacted.” The straight-up documentary “9/11” (using video shot that day by Jules and Gedeon Naudet) possesses a raw power totally lacking in Oliver Stone’s “World Trade Center,” which imposed a conventional Hollywood frame around the story of two survivors, trying to make a chaotic nightmare yield an inspirational story with the soothing illusion of closure.

In fact, 9/11 poses distinct challenges to the artist. As with Mr. Stone’s movie, there is the danger of trying to domesticate an overwhelming tragedy. There is also the question of presumption: How does one convey the enormity of the event without trivializing it? How does one bend art forms more often used for entertainment or artistic expression toward the capturing of history?

In “On the Transmigration of Souls,” the composer John Adams used taped sounds of New York to create what he called a “memory space” in which the audience could mourn. In his novel “The Zero,” Jess Walter used a Kafkaesque sense of the absurd to conjure the post-traumatic stress disorder the nation suffered. And in their TV series “Rescue Me,” Denis Leary and Peter Tolan looked directly at the post-9/11 lives of firefighters for whom “normal is dead and buried underneath ground zero.”

All too often, however, artworks keyed to 9/11 felt mercenary or narcissistic. Craig Wright’s play “Recent Tragic Events” was a slick romantic comedy about a blind date that takes place the day after 9/11, and Neil LaBute’s “The Mercy Seat,” also set on Sept. 12, used the attacks as an excuse for another of his cynical treatises on the venality of man. Novelists were equally solipsistic, using 9/11 as a plot point, as a mirror of their characters’ inner lives, or as a device to try to inject importance into otherwise slender stories. In Helen Schulman’s “A Day at the Beach,” 9/11 leads a hip downtown couple to reassess their marriage. And in Frédéric Beigbeder’s “Windows on the World,” a fictional storyline about a man and his sons caught in the World Trade Center on 9/11 is crassly intercut with the intellectual musings of a self-important narrator.

Fantasies and Forerunners

Sept. 11 and the emotions it generated — fear, anger, a desire for revenge — also fueled the success of several entertainment franchises. The hit counterterrorism show “24,” its co-creator Joel Surnow told the New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer, was “ripped out of the zeitgeist of what people’s fears are — their paranoia that we’re going to be attacked.” The series frequently used torture as a way of gathering intelligence it depicted the fight against terrorism much as members of the Bush administration did: as a struggle for American survival that required all means necessary.

In the case of the Syfy Channel’s remake of “Battlestar Galactica” — which depicted some humans who survive an attack by enemy robots — its executive producer Ronald D. Moore noted that many plot elements were “informed by the 9/11 experience and the war on terrorism.” Fans of Microsoft’s hugely popular video game “Halo,” in which humans face off against an alliance of alien species bent on holy war, have also pointed to parallels between the aliens and Al Qaeda.

For that matter, fantasy epics — pitting good versus evil in stark Manichaean terms — dominated the box office in the last decade: among the top-grossing films were “Avatar,” two installments of “The Lord of the Rings,” three installments of “Harry Potter” and “The Dark Knight.” Superheroes like Spider-Man and Iron Man ruled, and so did vampires. There was a lot of intellectualizing about all this: arguments that the fantasy boom embodied Americans’ need for escapism after 9/11 that superhero sagas offered audiences a way to process the tragedy that vampires, like terrorists, pose a deadly threat but often hide in plain sight. Steven Spielberg said his 2005 remake of “War of the Worlds” reflected post-9/11 anxiety. Time’s Richard Corliss described the Joker in “The Dark Knight” as “the terrorist as improv artist.” And bloggers compared Voldemort and his Death Eaters in “Harry Potter” to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

It’s too easy, however, to see every recent pop culture phenomenon as a metaphor for combating terrorism. Voldemort sprang from J. K. Rowling’s imagination well before 9/11. The Tolkien novels, like Batman, Spider-Man and many of their superhero brethren, predate 9/11 by decades, as do the first “Star Wars” movies. Curiously, the best-known terrorist-themed movies remain ones made before 9/11, including “Air Force One” (1997), “True Lies” (1994), “Patriot Games” (1992) and “Die Hard” (1988). Some of the works of art that would prove the most resonant in the post-9/11 world also turn out to have been written before the attacks. Tony Kushner began work on his play “Homebody/Kabul,” which unfolds into an examination of the West’s relationship with Afghanistan, back in 1997. And such early Don DeLillo novels as “Mao II” (1991) did a more prescient job of conjuring the post-9/11 era — in which terrorists have changed “the rules of what is thinkable” — than the flimsy novels he wrote after the attacks.

It is another measure of how resistant 9/11 remains to artistic treatment that several of the more memorable artworks that captured the city’s sense of loss did so by indirection. Colum McCann’s novel “Let the Great World Spin” focuses on New York City in 1974, when Philippe Petit walked between the twin towers on a tightrope. And Ric Burns’s documentary “The Center of the World” and Camilo José Vergara’s photographs on exhibit at the Museum of the City of New York make us re-experience the loss of the World Trade Center by recounting its history.

At the same time, other artistic creations — unrelated to 9/11 — took on new depth or new meanings. Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s monumental project “The Gates,” conceived in 1979 and only realized in 2005 with the support of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, threaded Central Park with 7,500 gates wrapped in saffron fabric, turning that great communal space into a work of art that was at once visionary and interactive, ephemeral and enduring. The largest public art project in the city’s history, it became, for many New Yorkers, a symbol of hope, of transcendence, of healing after 9/11.

“It’s not that everything is different after 9/11 it’s more that we look at the same stuff through a different prism,” says Kate D. Levin, the city’s cultural affairs commissioner. In the case of “The Gates,” she adds, something that had “nothing to do with 9/11, something that was completely about aesthetics” became “that much more profound.”


9-11 Commission

Naši uredniki bodo pregledali, kar ste oddali, in ugotovili, ali želite članek popraviti.

9-11 Commission, tudi črkovano 9/11 Commission, formally National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, bipartisan study group created by U.S. Pres. George W. Bush and the United States Congress on November 27, 2002, to examine the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. The commission’s report served as the basis for a major reform of the U.S. intelligence community, marking some of the most far-reaching changes since the creation of the modern national security bureaucracy at the start of the Cold War in the late 1940s.

The commission was initially to be chaired by former secretary of state Henry Kissinger and former U.S. senator George Mitchell, but each resigned shortly after their appointments due to conflicts of interest. Former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean and former congressman Lee Hamilton subsequently agreed to chair and vice-chair the commission, which was composed of five Republicans and five Democrats. A staff of experts led by Philip Zelikow prepared the report after interviewing 1,200 individuals and studying thousands of classified and unclassified reports. Nineteen days of public hearings were held. The commission’s findings, compiled as The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, were delivered in July 2004.

The report detailed the planning and execution of the al-Qaeda attacks, the response of the intelligence and policy communities to the intelligence warnings of an attack in the preceding months, and the response of the national security system to the attacks when they occurred. The commission concluded that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had inadequately assessed the threat posed by al-Qaeda and had not taken sufficient steps to disrupt its planning. The report said that the most important failure in both the intelligence and policy communities was one of imagination, in understanding the depth of the threat al-Qaeda posed.

The 9/11 Commission Report narrated in detail the development of al-Qaeda, its evolution into the organization that carried out the September 11 attacks, and the central leadership role played by Osama bin Laden. The report discussed al-Qaeda’s attacks on American targets before September 11, 2001, with a special focus on the August 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the attack on the USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, in October 2000. The commission also studied foiled al-Qaeda attacks like the so-called “Millennium Plot” to attack Los Angeles International Airport with a suitcase bomb in late December 1999. Much of the data on al-Qaeda’s planning and execution of the September 11 and other attacks derived from the statements of captured al-Qaeda operatives.

The commission also carefully assessed the role of foreign states in the plot and the attacks. Significantly, it concluded that Iraq had no role in the events of September 11, 2001, and was not involved in the al-Qaeda plot. This was notable because alleged Iraqi involvement in the attacks had served as a casus belli for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Despite the commission’s finding that there was “no credible evidence” linking the government of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, members of the Bush administration continued to assert that such ties existed. The report noted that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens but found no evidence of Saudi government participation in the attacks. The commission assessed that Pakistan played a central role in the development of Islamist extremism and urged the administration to take steps to strengthen democracy there. It applauded the administration for its intervention in Afghanistan after September 11, 2001, and urged a fully resourced effort to build a stable government in that country. The commission reviewed evidence of Iran’s involvement with al-Qaeda and suggested that further investigation was needed in this area.

The report concluded with a series of recommendations for reforming and restructuring the U.S. intelligence community and other national security agencies to deal with the threat of 21st-century terrorism. It called for the creation of a national intelligence director with authority over all agencies in the intelligence community this suggestion led to the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). It also called for the creation of a National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) to replace the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, which had been created in May 2003 the NCTC was duly created in the aftermath of the report.

The commission also recommended extensive changes in the manner in which the CIA and FBI conduct their work. The CIA was mandated to put a higher emphasis on human intelligence collection programs and to expand its analytical capabilities. The FBI was encouraged to develop new intelligence-gathering capabilities and develop an analytical cadre to match its traditional field agent structure. Above all, both agencies were tasked with sharing information about future threats and working collaboratively to combat them.

The commission’s work and its final report received a generally positive response from both Republicans and Democrats. The report itself became a best seller and was lauded for the quality of its prose. New York Times even cited its “uncommonly lucid, even riveting” style, unusual for a government report by a large number of experts.


A Response to 911 - History


Atif Khalil developed this document-based essay for use with high school United States history classes. je
intended as an assessment for a final unit where students examine issues facing the United States and the world at the start of the 21st century.

Historical Context: Al-Qaeda is a fundamentalist Islamic religious group and para-military organization currently based in Afghanistan. It was initially supported by the United States during the Soviet occupation of that country. After the first Persian Gulf War in 1991, al-Qaeda became increasingly hostile to the United States and was responsible for attacks on three American embassies in East African cities in 1998. On September 11, 2001, nineteen members of al-Qaeda seized control of four commercial passenger jet airliners in the United States. They crashed two airplanes into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone on board the planes. Both towers collapsed within two hours resulting in the death of almost 3,000 additional people who were either in the buildings at the time or emergency workers who responded to the attack. The al-Qaeda operatives flew a third airplane into the Pentagon building just outside of Washington, DC. The fourth plane crashed in a field in rural Pennsylvania after passengers and crew tried to retake control. The United States government under President George W. Bush responded to the 9/11 attacks by declaring a “War on Terror.” It accused Afghanistan and Iraq of supporting the al-Qaeda operation, invaded both countries, and brought down and replaced their governments. It also tightened domestic security at airports and in public spaces and along the nation’s borders. In the years following the 9/11 attacks, there has been ongoing debate over actions taken by the United States government. Critics have questioned whether the responses were appropriate and/or effective.

Task: Using the information from the documents and your knowledge of social studies, answer the questions that follow each document in Part A. Your answers to the questions will help you to write the Part B essay in which you will be asked to:
• Identify and explain two actions taken by the United States after the 9/11 attacks.
• Identify and explain two criticisms leveled against actions taken by the United States.
• Discuss how decisions made by the United States are impacting on both the United States and other countries.

Part A: Short - Answer Questions

Document 1. Hijacked Jets Destroy Twin Towers and Hit Pentagon
Source: New York Times, September 12, 2001, pg 1
“Hijackers rammed jetliners into each of New York’s World Trade Center towers yesterday, toppling both in a
hellish storm of ash, glass, smoke and leaping victims, while a third jetliner crashed into the Pentagon in Virginia. There was no official count, but President Bush said thousands had perished, and in the immediate aftermath the calamity was already being ranked the worst and most audacious terror attack in American history.”

Question: What happened on September 11, 2001?

Document 2. Not In Our Son’s Name
The son of Phyllis and Orlando Rodriguez was a World Trade Center victim. They distributed this letter on
September 15, 2001 before the start of the bombing of Afghanistan.
Source: Zinn and Arnove, eds. (2009). Voices of a People’s History, 2nd edition (NY: Seven Stories Press), p. 603.

“Our son Greg is among the many missing from the World Trade Center attack. Since we first heard the news, we have shared moments of grief, comfort, hope, despair, fond memories with his wife, the two families, our friends and neighbors, his loving colleagues . . , and all the grieving families that daily meet at the Pierre Hotel. We see our hurt and anger reflected among everybody we meet. We cannot pay attention to the daily flow of news about this disaster. But we read enough of the news to sense that our government is heading in the direction of violent revenge, with the prospect of sons, daughters, parents, friends in distant lands, dying, suffering, and nursing further grievances against us. It is not the way to go. It will not avenge our son's death. Not in our son's name. Our son died a victim of an inhuman ideology. Our actions should not serve the same purpose. Let us grieve. Let us reflect and pray. Let us think about a rational response that brings real peace and justice to our world. But let us not as a nation add to the inhumanity of our times.”

Vprašanja
1. Who was Greg Rodriguez?
2. Why did his parents write this letter?

Document 3. President Bush’s Afghanistan speech
Statement on October 7, 2001 by United States President George W. Bush after the start of U.S. and British military strikes on targets in Afghanistan.
Source: http://www.putlearningfirst.com/language/20rhet/bushat.html

“On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against al-Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan . . . We are supported by the collective will of the world. More than two weeks ago, I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands: Close terrorist training camps. Hand over leaders of the al-Qaeda network, and return all foreign nationals, including American citizens unjustly detained in our country. None of these demands were met. And now, the Taliban will pay a price. By destroying camps and disrupting communications, we will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans . . . Our military action is also designed to clear the way for sustained, comprehensive and relentless operations to drive them out and bring them to justice. At the same time, the oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of America and our allies. As we strike military targets, we will also drop food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering men and women and children of Afghanistan.”

Vprašanja
1. What demands did President Bush make on Taliban leaders?
2. List two reasons President Bush gave for invading Afghanistan.
3. How will the United States and its allies try to win support from the Afghan people?

Document 4. “An Attack on Us All: NATO’s Response to Terrorism”
Remarks by NATO Secretary General, Lord George Robertson of the United Kingdom, at the National Press Club, Washington DC, October 10, 2001
Source: http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2001/s011010b.htm
“The events of September 11 have changed the world. Like the attack on Pearl Harbor 60 years ago, they have seared deeply and unforgettably into our consciousness . . . But unlike Pearl Harbor, it was not just America that suffered. On September 11, the entire civilized word was transformed. In Paris, the headlines read, ‘We are all Americans now.’ On both sides of the Atlantic, pundits are writing epitaphs for the ‘post-Cold-War era’ and birth notices for ‘the age of terrorism.’ Horrifying as September 11 undoubtedly was, it does not in my view warrant this bleak analysis. We do those who lost their lives no service at all by adopting a victim mentality. Yes, we have suffered a great blow. But we have not lost our ability – or our will – to shape events. If this is indeed to become the ‘age of terrorism’, then we will be as much at fault as Osama Bin Laden. I say this because I have been enormously heartened by events since September 11, in NATO and beyond. And because it is already possible to identify a strategy not only to defeat Bin Laden, but to ensure that any terrorist successors remain confined to the margins of history . . . The U.S. government is setting a strong example by its measured determination. No retreat. No knee-jerk quick fixes. No revenge attacks. Instead, there is a deep awareness that this is going to be a long struggle, a struggle in which patience and persistence will be key. Those who expected US unilateralism have witnessed instead a masterpiece of multilateralism – rallying the world behind a common purpose in a way only the U.S. can. This has been coalition-building at its very best.”

Vprašanja
1. According to Lord George Robertson, how are the events of 9/11 different from Pearl Harbor?
2. Why does Robertson believe a “victim Mentality” is a mistake?
3. What actions by the United States does Robertson support?

Document 5. The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
Source: The Christian Science Monitor, March 14, 2003
“A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was ‘personally
involved’ in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago. Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say
there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein’s regime . . . Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either ‘most’ or ‘some’ of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.”

Question: What was the impact of White House efforts to link Iraq and the events of 9/11?

Document 6. Vice President Dick Cheney on Meet the Press
An interview with Vice-President Dick Cheney by Tim Russert on Meet the Press on September 14, 2003.
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/ns/meet_the_press
“We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, . . . that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that these individuals probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.”

Question: According to Vice President Cheney, what was the connection between Iraq and the attacks on 9/11?

Document 7. Anti-War Activist Protests Iraq War
Cindy Sheehan is an American anti-war activist whose son was killed while serving with the U.S. military in Iraq. She attracted national and international media attention in August 2005 for an extended protest outside President Bush’s Texas Ranch. Bush's Texas ranchundefineda stand which drew both passionate support and angry criticism.
Source: http://thinkexist.com/quotes/cindy_sheehan

“I was told my son was killed in the war on terror. He was killed by George Bush’s war of terror on the world . . . President Bush says we’re safer fighting them there than over here. Why are we safer because 120,000 civilians are dead? What makes their babies less precious than ours? . . . We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy . . . not for the real reason, because the Arab Muslims who attacked us hate our Middle-Eastern foreign policy.”

Question: What is Cindy Sheehan’s reaction to the U.S. response to 9/11?

Document 8. Global Media Abhors United States Response to 9-11
This article was published September 11, 2006 by the Agence France Presse.
Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0911-01.htm

“Newspapers across the world have strongly criticized the U.S. response to September 11, accusing the Bush
administration of bungling its ‘war on terror’ and squandering global goodwill by invading Iraq. On the fifth
anniversary of Al-Qaeda’s assault on New York and Washington, editorials united Monday in condemning the
attacks and expressing revulsion for the Islamic extremists who carried out the atrocity. While papers said many people were still grappling with the immensity of what happened on that day, nearly all agreed the world had since become a more dangerous and uncertain place. Much criticism, especially in the Middle East and Europe, was reserved for U.S. President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq under the banner of the ‘war on terror’.
The New York Times acknowledged the United States had lost the feeling of unity and purpose which gripped the nation in the aftermath of the attacks, and lamented a lost opportunity. ‘When we measure the possibilities created by 9/11 against what we have actually accomplished, it is clear that we have found one way after another to compound the tragedy,’ said the paper's editorial. Summing up the mood in the British press, the Financial Times said: ‘The way the Bush administration has trampled on the international rule of law and Geneva Conventions, while abrogating civil liberties and expanding executive power at home, has done huge damage not only to America's reputation but, more broadly, to the attractive power of Western values.’”

Question: Why do the newspapers cited in this article criticize the U.S. response to 9/11?

Document 9. Obama signs Patriot Act extension without reforms
Source: San Francisco Chronicle, March 1, 2010
“President Obama signed a one-year extension of three sections of the USA Patriot Act on Saturday without any new limits on the measures that many liberal groups and Democrats said were necessary to safeguard American civil liberties. The provisions allow the government, with permission from a special court, to obtain roving wiretaps over multiple communication devices, seize suspects’ records without their knowledge, and conduct surveillance of a so-called ‘lone wolf,’ or someone deemed suspicious but without any known ties to an organized terrorist group . . Experts suggest that a string of foiled terrorist plots over the past year combined with the Democrats' falling ratings amid the healthcare debate blunted any move to reform the act, which was passed in the wake of 9/11. ‘We’ve stopped 28 terrorist attacks since 9/11,’ says James Carafano, a homeland security expert at The Heritage Foundation. “The Patriot Act has been a big part of that."

Vprašanja
1. What type of actions were authorized by the USA Patriot Act?
2. According to the article, why were key parts of the act renewed?

Document 10. George Bush's former aide defends waterboarding of terrorism suspects
On March 12, 2010, The Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Karl Rove, a senior adviser to former.
President Bush, was proud that the country used waterboarding to elicit information from terrorism suspects.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/12/waterboarding-terrorism-guantanamo-karl-rove
“Last year President Barack Obama banned waterboarding, stating: ‘I believe that waterboarding was torture and, whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake.’ However, in an interview for the BBC’s Newsnight
programme, Rove stood by its use. ‘I’m proud that we used techniques that broke the will of these terrorists and gave us valuable information that allowed us to foil plots such as flying aeroplanes into Heathrow and into London, bringing down aircraft over the Pacific, flying an aeroplane into the tallest building in Los Angeles and other plots,’ he said. ‘Yes, I’m proud that we kept the world safer than it was, by the use of these techniques. They’re appropriate, they’re in conformity with our international requirements and with US law.’”

Question: What is the disagreement between Barack Obama and Karl Rove?

Part B Essay: Write a well-organized essay that includes an introduction, several paragraphs, and a conclusion.
Use evidence from at least SIX documents in your essay. Support your response with relevant facts, examples, and details. Include additional outside information. In your essay you must:
• Identify and explain two actions taken by the United States after the 9/11 attacks.
• Identify and explain two criticisms leveled against actions taken by the United States.
• Discuss how decisions made by the United States are impacting on both the United States and other countries.


Poglej si posnetek: Я влюбился. Porsche 911. (Junij 2022).