[TADSLOS]

We continue to under-react. Death by a thousand cuts. That's our punishment for failing to see the enemy for what it is and act accordingly.

[gakrak]

"o point in trying to deny them. But does either of these facts put "into perspective" the wanton killing of your beloved pet? Upon hearing Bell's recital of these indisputable facts, would you immediately say to him: "How right you are, Dr. Bell, and how wrong I was to fly into a rage over the killing of a single statistically insignificant dog. Thank you for putting the matter into perspective for me."

Ah, then I might consider to turn and shoot the guy who shot my dog and the good prof as well. Amen.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

Not by a longshot.

[mylife]

Proffesor Bell is liberal egghead who wouldnt know reality if it hit him between the eyes.
Its a shame the 9/11 planes didnt hit his ivory tower

[LowCountryJoe]

I think that we should have left Iraq alone and let them continue defying the UN Security Council Resolutions that had been put in place from the begging of the cease-fire in the spring of '91 through to late 2002, just before we resumed combat operations. After all, we were sending the wrong kinds of peaceful messages during this time frame. In fact, maybe we should not have interfered in the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait the first time around -- because, well, you know, that's their business and let me just stay here, in America, and champion social justice cause for human rights issues at the nearest university with my cup of Starbucks.

[BuffaloJack]

Dear Lee Harris,
Did America over-react?
Are you complete nuts?
What if I walked up to you with a Loiusville Slugger and belted you in the teeth?
Would you be pissed? Would you have any teeth left?
You you want to come after me?
Of course you would you moron.
9/11 was an unprovoked and surprise attack on the United States. It have to be met with retaliation.
We can't rest until every terrorist in the world is DEAD!

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

The author sums up my sentiments in the last paragraph. Or as my wife likes to say, "Why can't we just bomb them all?"

Had we reacted to the Iranian hostage taking outrage more forcefully and brutally there would have been no 9/11.

[raybbr]

DAVID A. BELL
ANDREW W. MELLON PROFESSOR IN THE HUMANITIES
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
Curriculum Vitae (updated May, 2006)
Department of History phone: 410-516-7578
The Johns Hopkins University fax: 410-516-7586
3400 North Charles Street e-mail: dabell@jhu.edu
Baltimore, MD 21218 web page: www.davidbell.net
EMPLOYMENT
Johns Hopkins University, Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the Humanities (2005- ).
Johns Hopkins University. Professor of History (2000-5).
École Normale Supérieure (Paris), Visiting Professor (March, 2005).
Johns Hopkins University. Associate Professor of History (1996-2000).
Yale University. Assistant Professor of History (1991-96).
Yale University. Lecturer in History (1990-91).
The New Republic (Washington, DC). Magazine reporter (1984-85).
EDUCATION
Princeton University. Ph.D. in History, 1991. Thesis advisor: Prof. Robert Darnton.
Thesis title: "Lawyers and Politics in Eighteenth-Century Paris (1700-1790)."
Princeton University. M.A. in History, 1987, with grade of "distinction" on general
examinations.
Ecole Normale Supérieure (Paris). Foreign auditor in History (1983-84).
Harvard University. A.B. in History and Literature, 1983, magna cum laude. Phi Beta
Kappa.

If you do a little research you will find that Bell's main study has been France. It's no wonder he's arguing for capitulation.

[Phlap]

Did America over react? Lets go with the short answer. No!!

Did America show a measured, even response? Lets go with the short answer. Yes!!

[Tolik]

Lee Harris:

...One may well die fighting or perish by fleeing; yet both responses are far more conducive to survival than waiting for a professor to put the attack into "historical perspective" four years after it occurred. It may be true that others have suffered even more outrageous attacks than the one you have suffered. But what's that to you? The only attack that concerns you is the attack that you must immediately defend yourself against. You must respond now, or never.

...Is this irrational? To professors ensconced in the comfort of a university no doubt, but not to those who have to exist in a dog-eat-dog world.

...If any group wishes to preserve its dignity and autonomy, there will be times when it is forced to act like the inmate defending his candy bar. In terms of a cost analysis, this kind of "overreaction" will seem utterly irrational. Is the candy bar really worth risking your life over? But to you, the refusal to take this risk involves a loss that cannot be measured by statistics - namely, the loss of your status as an independent moral agent that others will be careful not to push around or walk over.

...It is far too early to be invoking the august judgment of history on America's response to 9/11; it may well turn out that the USA, instead of overreacting, failed to react strongly and forcefully enough. 9/11 as an act of unprovoked aggression is without parallel, and those who celebrated it throughout the Muslim world did so with complete impunity. In the eyes of our enemy, our failure to respond immediately and indiscriminately to the attack has not been chalked up to our humanitarian zeal, but to our weakness. Like the inmate who hands over his candy bar without protest, those who were watching us for our reaction to 9/11 may be drawing conclusions about us that we did not intend to convey to them, and that are not in our long-term interests.

---

If you are not familiar with Lee Harris, take a time to read some of his classics -- the following articles are the reason why I started paying attention to what Lee Harris says. I am sure you will find these articles interesting :

Al Qaeda’s Fantasy Ideology By Lee Harris (FR post)   "Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology," (original)

The Clausewitz Curse (FR post)             The Clausewitz Curse (original)
Given our uncertainty, what alternative does this, or any, administration have? 

 Our World-Historical Gamble  (FR post)           Our World-Historical Gamble (original)
The collapse of the liberal order and the end of classical sovereignty.

 The Intellectual Origins Of America-Bashing  http://www.policyreview.org/dec02/harris.html

America-bashing has sadly come to be “the opium of the intellectual,” to use the phrase Raymond Aron borrowed from Marx in order to characterize those who followed the latter into the twentieth century. And like opium it produces vivid and fantastic dreams.

His book:   Civilization and Its Enemies : The Next Stage of History

Lee Harris: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/k-leeharris/browse  His articles at the TechCentralStation are archived here: http://www.tcsdaily.com/Authors.aspx?id=218

Nailed It!
Moral Clarity BUMP !

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

[olezip]

The title of the piece is "Putting 9/11 into perspective," and its by-line reads: "The attacks were a horrible act of mass murder, but history says we're overreacting."

This guy is a moron! Or does he simply believe that the problem with Islamofacism has been solved, and we are now more safe than we were before 9/11? In fact, IMO the world is a much more dangerous place, as our very existence as a part of western society is being threatened. This is so because we have failed to react with the force necessary. Our failure to use our technology to achieve a decisive victory is the real problem.

[Cymbaline]

What a stupid question!

[word_warrior_bob]

It was the biggest underreaction in the History Of Civilization and continues to be so at our own peril.

[papertyger]

The crying shame of it is if you were to treat anyone promoting Bell's thesis as they deserve to be treated it would most definitely be considered "over reaction," and punishable by law.

[Little Ray]

No. We under-reacted. We needed large, radioactive craters to get the message across about the consequences of attacking us and we failed to do so. Kabul and Kandahar in Afghanistan were really, really good candidates, too.

[Vineyard]

It is necessary to be ready to fight to correct wrongs, regardless of a concern about "proportionality." The story of ancient Troy & Sparta - and the abduction of Helen, and the epic story of the 10 year battle (and thousands of deaths) to free one woman is but one example.

In ancient Roman times, foreign cities would not harm a Roman citizen, because to do so could cause the entire might of the Roman Empire to come down on the city, exacting a fearful payment. Being a Roman citizen meant one could travel fairly safely. And a city that harmed a Roman city might be totally destroyed and all inhabitants killed - over the harming of a single Roman citizen.

At the start of the 20th century, being an American citizen also had certain protections. Theodore Roosevelt sent Marines in many times when American lives might be at risk.

Robert Heinlein wrote in his "Starship Troopers" - where Ricco is instructed by his History and Moral Philosophy Instructor, Maj. Reid - that fighting - going to war, even a war that could kill thousands, or millions, can and should be done over just 1 individual. If we treat men as potatoes - then perhaps the deaths of less than some number of men is insufficient to raise the ire of a nation and go to war, but if the enemy exceeds that threshold, then we do go to war. Over time, that threshold level continually raises, and the nation becomes soft and will be in decline.

We saw that threshold raise as we did nothing about the terrorist attacks. We did nothing about Saddam's assaination plot against Bush(41). We did nothing about the continued violations of UN resolutions, we did nothing about Saddam's continued shooting at our airplanes. We were soft, and willing to take the insults, because we didn't have the stomach to stand strong. All in all, my guess is that the Democrats basically allow perhaps 10,000 civilian deaths a year to be inadequate justification to go to war. With the Democrats - men are potatoes.

Mike