Looking Back in Anger
Memorializing 9/11 is more vital than ever, as the emotion and sense of purpose that swept over this country in 2001 dissipate. But PJM's David Rusin writes that remembering the events in sadness is not enough. We must also remain angry.
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
In a video that aired just prior to the 2004 presidential election, American traitor and Al Qaeda propagandist Adam Gadahn warned his former countrymen that they would soon face a fresh wave of terror, the “magnitude and ferocity” of which “will make you forget all about September 11.” Gadahn was half right. His promised attacks never materialized, but 9/11 is well on its way to being forgotten.
Yes, this year’s anniversary will witness moments of silence, lists of names, and stories about loved ones. We can likewise anticipate poignant words from political leaders, along with obligatory reports on the nightly news. However, one fact is undeniable: the emotion and sense of purpose that swept over this country in the wake of 9/11 have dissipated. And that is what leaves us truly vulnerable to the intentions of Gadahn and his cohorts.
September 11 has taken its place alongside December 7 as a date that lives in infamy - and one that is barely contemplated during the other 364 days. But consider the contrast. More than six decades have elapsed since the raid on Pearl Harbor, and the challenges made clear on that fateful morning were resolved in another age, by another generation. Conversely, the Long War with radical Islam that began in earnest merely six years ago stands closer to its outset than its denouement. In World War II parlance, it is still early 1942, and there has not yet been a Midway or a Guadalcanal to signal the turning point.
With Iraq teetering in the balance, Iran flaunting its nuclear ambitions, Israel under siege, and Pakistan in turmoil, remembering 9/11 is more vital than ever. The traumatic images from that day - United Flight 175 slicing into the south tower, a cloud of debris rushing through the streets of Manhattan - provide striking testimony about the brutal character of Islamic extremism, the vulnerability of a free and open West, and the sober truth that fighting our enemies on foreign soil is preferable to fighting them here.
In fact, simply remembering is not enough. Memory itself is neutral. We remember bland bits of data like phone numbers and train schedules and what we ate for dinner yesterday. It is emotion that imbues such memories with substance - the phone number of someone we love, the train that took us to our first job, the dinner that we shared with old friends. No, we must not only remember 9/11. We must also remain angry.
Anger is frequently portrayed as a negative emotion that debases those who wield it. The counterpoint is offered by Bede Jarrett, a prominent Dominican priest of the early 1900s. “The world needs anger,” he argued. “The world often continues to allow evil because it isn’t angry enough.” Anger at an injustice spurs people to combat that injustice, as when neighbors unite to drive out drug dealers following the death of a child. Indeed, anger can be both principled and righteous - a force for good in the world.
Are you angry about 9/11 and its aftermath? I am.
I am angry at the carnage of that clear September morning, as 19 soldiers of Allah stole the lives of nearly 3,000 irreplaceable human beings. However, my anger extends far beyond those specific horrors and the terrorists who perpetrated them. Mohamed Atta can never kill again, but the malignant worldview that spawned him continues to target innocents each and every day. That ideology must be the ultimate focus of our anger.
I am angry at the failure of Western elites to robustly acknowledge the true nature of the enemy: a violent, repressive, and expansionist movement grounded in Islam. Rather, we are fed a litany of bromides about the role of poverty and “the religion of peace.” No war has ever been won without knowing the enemy, and this war will not be the first.
I am angry at the deniers who insist that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by President Bush, the CIA, or the Mossad. I am angry at Ward Churchill and his glassy-eyed minions who proclaim that stockbrokers and secretaries got what they deserved on that day.
I am angry that, six years later, lower Manhattan remains scarred by a giant hole in the pavement. This is a national shame. The torpid pace of reconstruction at Ground Zero serves as a microcosm for the hesitancy and half measures that have plagued our approach to this war from the beginning.
I am angry that Osama bin Laden has not yet been granted the martyrdom that he enthusiastically promotes for his underlings. While neutralizing the Al Qaeda leader would by no means end this struggle, it would nonetheless prove remarkably satisfying to see him paraded around in an orange jumpsuit or stretched out on a slab.
I am angry at the factions that are agitating for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, the central front in this global conflict. Iraqi soil already covers the graves of countless jihadists cut from the same mold as the 9/11 hijackers. We must not forgo the opportunity to eliminate many more of them and inflict upon their movement a strategic defeat.
Finally, I am angry at the self-appointed guardians of civil rights, primarily CAIR and the ACLU, which aim to dismantle virtually every security measure put in place to forestall another mass casualty attack. Their tireless peddling of phantom outrages subjects all of us to greater risk.
Benjamin Franklin noted that “anger is never without a reason, but seldom with a good one.” The atrocities visited upon us six years ago and the feckless response to them provide such a reason. Indeed, anger is not merely appropriate; it is essential if we are to diligently confront the evils of radical Islam. Let us therefore pledge to remember 9/11 - not just today, but every day - and to not simply remember, but to feel angry as well.
Only by looking back in anger can we look forward with resolve.
David J. Rusin holds a Ph.D. in Physics and Astronomy from the University of Pennsylvania. His interests include foreign affairs and security policy. He may be contacted at djrusin@gmail.com.
| Comment | Digg This |
del.icio.us |
![]() |
![]() |
PJM Home |


Digg This
del.icio.us

PJM Home


6 Comments
David Thomson:A very high number of Americans want to take a permanent vacation from history. This was the central reason why Bill Clinton was elected president. Soviet Communism had been defeated and we now supposedly could almost exclusively focus on domestic issues. Unfortunately, as someone once said: you may not be interested in war—but war is interested in you. The Islamic nihilists will not be satisfied until they dominate the entire planet. We are in an existential fight to the death. Liberalism is unable to respond to such a threat. Its adherents would have to abandon core principle and assume the responsibilities of adulthood. They prefer to remain immature children.
The Democratic Party and its Ron Paul Republican allies greatly endanger our country. We must never underestimate the importance of next year’s elections. It will likely be our very last chance to save ourselves.
Sep 11, 2007 - 9:36 am Dr. Ellen:I have a doctorate in PHYSICS, for Pete’s sake, and there have been Modernists who are filled with rage that I should think the facts of physics are immutable (even if we may not know them perfectly).
You needn’t imagine, then, the rage of the Modernists when we dare to assert that history actually happened, instead of merely being a story told by the dominant patriarchy. You needn’t imagine it, because it’s on display every day in the words of the Far Left and their enablers.
Sep 11, 2007 - 11:46 am AST:I don’t care whether we’re angry as long as we remain resolute in hunting down terrorists and destroying them. We haven’t backed up our rhetoric with action. If we had, we’d have overthrown the regime in Syria by now and served notice on Pakistan that there can be no refuge in its borders for Al Qaeda or the Taliban. You don’t have to be angry to decide to rid the world of vermin. In fact, it might be better for our efforts against these apostate Islamists if they saw us as implacable, resolute and regardless of our losses. They believe that everything that happens is the will of God and is fated. The more we identify ourselves with the hand of fate and make their ultimate destruction inevitable, the more likely they are to lose their appeal to young Muslims, especially if we combine our military efforts with progress in political, social and physical infrastructure.
They will commit any atrocity, use any tactic, such as forcing us to kill women and children jacketed in explosive belts, to weaken our will.
Sep 11, 2007 - 2:46 pm Michael Lonie:Well said Dr. Rusin.
Anger is a motivating emotion in war, not a guide to action. If I may quote the Communist physicist P. M. S. Blackett, “Wars are not fought on gusts of emotion.” Our government has chosen not to motivate by anger as was done in WWII. I think this is turning out to be a mistake. We are showing ourselves incompetent at the information war, or propaganda war if you will. Two examples should explain it.
Iran is a key enemy in this war. No one will be safe until the Ayatollahs are overthrown, not us, not Middle Easterners, not the Iranians themselves. A simple ploy to help discredit them among Muslims would be to refer to the Ayatollahs in all American public statements as “The Pharaohs of Tehran”. “Pharaoh” has an extremly pejoritive connotation in Islam, being the ultimate hypocrite and evildoer. This is a small thing but I think it would help.
We should also be publicizing through Arabic and Persian language broadcasts the vicious atrocities our enemies committed in Fallujah and Baqubah when they briefly ruled those places. “This is the way the New Caliphate will govern you. Is that what you want?” should be our question. We should harp on this continuously, adding more examples as we find them. We can see in Anbar Province how the actual experience of being ruled by these radical Islamists disgusts the people ruled. It is a weakness in our enemies we can exploit, if we have the will and intelligence to do so.
We must pit our big idea against our enemy’s. His is a worldwide caliphate where Muslims will swagger around lording it over wretched dhimmis (the rest of us). It is an attractive and flattering self image for Muslims. We must pit against it our idea, liberty and prosperity in a modern world. So far we are not doing a good job of that.
Sep 11, 2007 - 5:26 pm Lena in LaLaLand:I was getting ready for school in the 10th grade on the morning of Sept. 11th. I remember feeling angry and seeing many angry people, not just that day, but weeks afterwards. Where has the outrage gone? I’m 20 now, and that feeling that I saw other people having seems as distant as what I had for lunch a few days ago. I find this unfortunate and awfully discouraging.
One of the things that angers me the most is how many Americans are saying that we deserved Sept. 11th or that ‘we had it coming’.
Sep 11, 2007 - 6:24 pm Tom W.:I wouldn’t be so quick to argue that we’re fighting this war by half-measures.
Ask the French how all-out war against Muslims went in Algeria. The French used collective punishment in the form of indiscriminate airstrikes and artillery barrages on villages; mass summary executions; horrific torture; and concentration camps, but they still lost.
Not only that, their KIA rate was almost four times ours, even though they killed 350,000 to 1.5 million Algerians.
Ask the Soviets how they did using all-out war against Muslims in Afghanistan. Their KIA rate was twice ours, even though they killed a million Afghans.
This is the Long War. By fighting it with a level of restraint, we’re slowly turning Muslims against al Qaeda and their ilk.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m sick of Islam. I hate it. But we need Muslims both to help us win and to bring about an Enlightenment in their awful religion.
Be patient. We’re doing this the smart way, no matter what the so-called experts say.
Sep 12, 2007 - 2:23 am