NWW World-News 11.09.2011 US political analysts question military ventures since 911 Experts_on_9-11

Michael Vlahos, Professor of Strategy at the United States Naval War College, believes the United States' wars in the Middle East were "the wrong kind of choices for what we wanted in the long term to achieve in the Muslim world."

"We were doing things that... may have felt good, may have addressed a tremendous sense of emotional angst that we felt, but in the long run we're achieving in many ways the opposite of what we wanted", he explained.

Bill Van Auken, an activist for the US Socialist Equality Party, believes the 9/11 attacks were the pretext, not the root cause, of America's foreign invasions.

"I think if you look into what took place in the aftermath of 9/11, they don't flow from the events, they flow from the policies that had been in the works for at least the previous decade."

Van Auken said the US government believed that "a unipolar moment had arisen, that the United States could carry out its will by military force anywhere in the world, and it could use military force to reverse... an economic decline in its position on the world stage."

Ivan Eland, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute, says few Americans now believe that "the war in Afghanistan or the war in Iraq... had a positive effect on fighting terrorism."

He says the US should have focused on Al Qaeda and excluded Saddam Hussein and all these manufactured associations between Iraq and Bin Laden which were totally false."

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• NWW
• World-News
• 11.09.2011
• US
• political
• analysts
• question
• military
• ventures
• since
• 911
• Experts_on_9-11
• news