Losers of 9/11 Part 2:
Many other actors lost opportunities due to the events of 9/11. The lost opportunities of the American ruling class were discussed in Part 1. The ordinary American people also lost as well. Their interests are not the same as those of their rulers. Certainly not the same as all factions of that ruling class, for the ruling class has factions that have different interests. This may seem a truism, and most of the American left will make ritual genuflections in this direction just like a good Catholic will before the host contained in the tabernacle whether they really believe that that piece of bread is the body and blood of Christ or if it is just a verbal formula. The more radical and academic sections of the American left adopt a general attitude towards their fellow countrymen that is, in fact, the precise opposite of seeking to aid the aspirations of ordinary people.
The Leninist theory of imperialism- factually wrong in terms of modern economics, assuming it ever was right- that explained the ability of some sections of the western working class to better their condition by imagining that they participated in some "looting" of the imperial colonies is a mere newly hatched chick to the dinosaur sized Great Rock of modern American leftist "guilt spinning". This web of feelings and rhetoric assigns an "ist" and an "ism" to so many conditions of life that presumably (whether they do in reality of not) "give benefit" to some imaginary oppressing group that it pretty well excludes 100% of Americans and 99.9999% of the world's population from the ranks of the "totally oppressed". The end result is psychological one-up-man-ship, not politics.
What follows is not anarchist propaganda. It merely assumes that the American people are mostly decent and that they deserve benefits which they lost due to a misguided reaction on the part of the American government to the events of 9/11. None of the opportunities that they lost really have much to do with anarchism except in a peripheral sense in the loss of their liberties and potential for security through greater self sufficiency and conservation. What they lost presumes basically the same general political economy that they have had in the past, but one managed a bit more intelligently than it has been in recent years.
Some of the losses of the American people are obvious. They have far fewer civil liberties today than they had six years ago. It is doubtful that this has increased their security any more than a focused effort on Al Queda, without the distraction of the Iraq invasion, would have done. The likelihood is precisely the opposite. The Americans are losing "the war of ideas" because of the domestic actions of their government, just as they are losing it because of its foreign adventures.
But there are other losers that they have suffered that are much more in the way of lost opportunities. Before 9/11 America was in a much better fiscal position that it is now. Not that their position was perfect, but matters such as the deficit and the negative balance of payments were at least possibly fixable. Add a trillion dollars via the undertaking of a hopeless war and the problems become insoluble. similarly, other pressing matters such a an infrastructure deficit, a poorly performing educational system, loss of innovative capacity, growing social inequality that threatens the implied "social contract" of America's myth of equality, etc. get swept away from consideration by the breeze generated by so many waving flags. These problems don't disappear. They fester and become worse the longer they are ignored. In a climate of war hysteria generated by a government determined to widen an inevitable war into a series of optional wars they will continue to grow in magnitude.
As America wastes its resources trying to achieve the impossible other, more sensible, countries become much better at competition because they use their resources wisely. In the end the living conditions of the American population stagnate at best and, more likely, begin to decline. The Americans are presently paying the price for allowing themselves to be swept up in the ideological myth generated by the present government. They have begun to wake up, but precious time has been lost. An hopeless crusade to try and monopolize Middle Eastern oil has put the necessary development of energy conservation and alternative sources of energy in the USA back at least a decade. Ignoring this necessity is treason to the American people because it perpetuates the dependence of the USA on vulnerable foreign supplies. The Republicans end up giving Al Queda greater assistance than the most "liberal" of American politicians ever could.
All the above is written from an "in their shoes" point of view. It assumes the general perspective of a rational citizen of the USA with all their general beliefs about politics and economics. It doesn't contradict any major system of American belief. When I examine the other "losers" I will indeed go beyond these beliefs. But for now...
More later
Molly

Lost Opportunities of 9/11
Many countries, peoples and movements lost opportunities due to the events of 9/11. Either that or they left opportunities untouched. The losers come from all points of the geographic and political spectrum. As I said I'd like to explore what was lost. This will be in no particular order, and what is said below doesn't mean that I approve of the ultimate goals of any of the collection of losers that I will present. When I do I'll try and make it as plain as possible.
So, beginning in the refrain of "I could do it better", let's look at the self interests of the American Empire. This whole matter is actually quite well hashed out in the popular and intellectual press of many different countries, and I don't expect that I'll say anything new here.
The American government was presented with an unprecedented "gift" by the events of 9/11. This was perhaps the ONLY time since the second world war that the USA received pretty well universal sympathy, at least from other governments-both "friends" and "competitors". Even Cuba. More determined and ideological opponents such as Iran maintained a polite silence. The sympathy was actually pretty reflective of public as opposed to government opinion in most countries as well. Even in the Middle East those who "celebrated" the attacks were a distinct minority, and the general population rejected them for at least "tactical" reasons.
It's perhaps symptomatic of the decline of politics in a worldwide sense that the American government had a George Bush at the helm in this moment rather than a person who could act as a "statesman". The era of the "statesman" has really been over for some decades. To my knowledge there is only one such item in power today. I imply no sympathy for the decaying dictatorship which he tends when I nominate Castro for this accolade. His junior partner, Chavez of Venezuela, is more of a clown and megalomaniac than old Fidel, and he hardly inspires the "vision" that old Fidel's revolutionary model did when it was still vital. the only other living statesman that I can think of is the retired Nelson Mandela.
Talent simply doesn't come to the halls of power anymore. A truly statesman-like American president could have parlayed the sympathy the USA received because of the events into a much more refined project for the "second American century" that American ideologues dream of. The configuration of events might have been rather different than what we see today. There was no reason why Saddam Hussein could not have once more become the American puppet he once was, and why he could not have become the regional counterweight to the ideologues of Iran that is so lacking today. The history of the American imperium has been marked for decades by alliances of convenience. Deadly communist foes such as China or the Kymer Rouge have ended up receiving American support just as surely as Saddam once did.
No doubt the imperium would still be an empire, with all that implies, but you can be assured that its machinations would be better covered with the cloak of "ethics" and "multilateralism" than the shredded image that America projects today. Those in control of the US government at the time were blinded by their ideology. From a simple real-politic point of view they can be seen as the intellectual pygmies they are when placed beside a truly intelligent advocate of the American Empire such as Henry Kissinger. Even more they were blinded by hubris, by an almost total overestimation of their power and even popularity. It would be hard to imagine Kissinger making such a mistake. Detente with China occurred because the US government of the time realized in a totally realistic way that it could not afford to wage a cold war against BOTH the Soviet Union and the PRC. There was a realistic understanding of the limits of American power that is lacking in the present American rulers.
Middle Eastern oil could have been much more securely in the American pocket with BOTH Iraq and Saudi Arabia as client states. The crusade against Islamic fundamentalism would be far more effective with Saddam's coterie of murderers on the American side. With the diversion of American forces and interests from the latter to the former objective BOTH objectives have now become exceedingly precarious. The reaction of the "Arab street" that the USA's actions constitute a crusade against "all" of Islam has been echoed by a loss of sympathy amongst non-Islamic countries. They can plainly see that the ultimate targets of America's wars in the Middle East is actually their own economies. Very few world government leaders express this bluntly, but it is an unstated reality behind growing scepticism elsewhere, whether in Europe, China or Russia.
Once more, the USA could have gained from the opportunity presented by the events of 9/11, but they foolishly frittered away their advantage by overstepping sensible limits on the reality of their power. They were one loser. The conservative movement in the USA mirrored this debacle on a domestic scale. The invasion of Iraq destroyed an opportunity that they had to become hegemonic in domestic politics- perhaps for decades to come. The liberal opposition has made a comeback because the conservatives were too foolish and arrogant.
These opportunities that were lost will never come again short of the success of Al Queda in actually deploying a real weapon of mass destruction- less likely than some Americans imagine- or a total loss of realism on the part of a future Iran armed with nuclear weapons. this is also unlikely for a number of reasons. Given the probable course of events in the near future the lost will never be recovered.
More on other losers later.