Truthfully, Cromsky’s opinion on the events of the September 11th attacks are very controversial as he says, however also misguided. In his essay, Cromsky challenges the regular American viewpoint of 9/11 by stating that the following war on terror was exactly what bin Laden wanted, and that previous events (such as the Chile conflict mentioned in the essay) even conducted by the United States put down the travesty. Cromsky later goes on to mention that the following death of bin Laden was ultimately illegal and wrongful, and that if another country had done the same, the United States would be in outcry.
On the other hand of the points made by Cromsky, there is much to look at. The “tragedy” that was conducted by the United States in Chile was underplayed by 9/11 due to a multitude of reasons. Firstly, the events took place much before 9/11, and by the time the september 11th attacks hit, the world was more connected, with new luxuries such as the internet forming these connections. Being more connected allows more people to be exposed to a topic or event, in this case 9/11, which caused the attacks to be more widely known than the Chilean coup. Likewise, the 9/11 attacks hit home more than the events in Chile because they literally hit home. The september 11th attacks targeted huge buildings in a bustling American city of New York, which would obviously resonate more with Americans rather than the Chilean events. On top of this, Cromsky identifies that there could have been an alternative to the eventual war on terror which Cromsky believes “bled” the economy. Although the war was expensive, it was not the single greatest factor to cause recession, and other problems existed of even greater significance such as the failure of the stock market to start the United States’ recession period. Cromsky continues to put to shame Bush’s response to the attacks, but no matter how draining or depleting Cromsky tries to put them up to, one undeniable result was created from his response, that being American pride and nationalistic unity. Bush’s war on terror, as well as his address to congress after the attacks brought together everyone that encompassed America with open arms to stand up for themselves and the country. And although many of Bush’s decisions in office have been far from perfect, his ability to rally the American people was truly impactful, and noted in his skyrocketing approval ratings at the time. Many people looked for someone to reside their fears in and gain security in return, and Bush was arguably successful in this regard. Along with these claims, Cromsky adds that the later assassination of bin Laden, the man behind the terrorist group responsible for the attacks, was unlawful. Cromsky argues in his essay that with a large amount of military commandos, the Navy SEALs which brought the mass murderer down should have taken him in alive to be put on trial. However, it is known that the SEALs were given orders to kill, and that the mission was ultimately an assassination mission not a capture, disproving the idea that the commandos on the mission were in the wrong. In regard to the orders, they remained completely lawful. Cromsky makes a vague attempt at trying to relate the killing of bin Laden to the assassination of a president or political leader, however this is not the case. In fact, the assassination of political leaders outside of being in war is completely illegal, which Cromsky is right about. Where Cromsky goes wrong is clumping bin Laden in as a “political leader,” which he was not. The reason Osama bin Laden’s death was completely legal was due to him being a military commander, and in military combat, an enemy can be lawfully killed even if they surrender. Speaking of which, one popular justification made by Cromsky and those likeminded is to say that bin Laden was unarmed and tried to surrender. Although partially correct (he was unarmed), there was no record of him ever trying to surrender to the special forces. In fact, he even went on to use his many wives as human shields, something a man who wishes to surrender would most likely never do. There is also the moral side of the argument, where bin Laden’s death is also justifiable. Should the leader of a mass-terror group which has not only put into harms way thousands if not millions of people as well as publicly and proudly claimed its responsibility in these events have a trial? Does having a trial do justice to the millions of people that were targeted by Al Qaeda? Does giving this murderer of a man even the slimmest of chances of being declared “free” give justice to the thousands of innocent Americans like Cromsky who’s lives were ended due to the horrid dreams of another? One would think the clear answer is “no,” and that his death was in fact not even a severe enough punishment for his wrongdoings.
Ultimately, Cromsky pushes some flawed attempts to try and put a new spin on the viewpoint of 9/11. However, the claims mostly all come out with little evidence to back up the arguments (the “essay” is posted on the Huffingtonpost, not the most trusted source in the world), stating vague statements and polls which don't really do much other than try and persuade.
