Home Divided We Stand
Home Divided We Stand

Divided We Stand

Time brings distance to all events. No pain is as fresh twenty years later as on the day it happened. The shock of the impossible becomes the new normal and then it becomes more background noise.

"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic," Joseph Stalin said. The statisticians in Doha, Tehran and Riyadh know it quite well when they count up their numbers. Compound death is more than a statistic; it is incomprehensible.

The banal media coverage of September 11 grapples with a story too big to tell that can only be broken down into human fragments of personal stories.

This is true for most of the dark footprints of history. There is no story of the Holocaust, there are only countless personal stories of survivors and the procedural story of the Nazi killing machine. These perspectives never come together into a single story only human fragments and procedural details, the departments and mechanisms, how many milligrams of Zyklon B it takes per kilogram to kill a person and how many people can be loaded on a train in how much time.

The coverage of 9/11 breaks down into these same mini-stories, survivors describing how they escaped, the families of the dead relating how they reacted to the news, the stories of firefighters and officers, and the procedural questions, how long it takes a falling body to achieve terminal velocity and what happens to the human body when it breathes in enough ash and soot. On the other side are the killers who plotted and planned, checked flight schedules, got their boxcutters and their korans and killed thousands for Allah.

The story of the attacks cannot be told because there is no boundary to it. Where do we begin, with a handful of upper class Muslims in Hamburg? With a scion of the Bin Laden clan becoming a Ghazi or with Hassan Al-Banna finding inspiration in Third Reich propaganda to modernize Islamism? With the Gates of Vienna, the Shores of Tripoli or Mohammed in Mecca? All but the last are incomplete, and even the last leaves too much out.

When a murder happens we trace back the motives of the killer. Was he abused as a child, did the authorities fail to act in time, what made a once sweet boy turn into a killer? To do the same for September 11 is to travel back over a thousand years and still come away with few answers except that sometimes human evil can be congealed into an ideology and passed along from generation to generation like a virus of hatred and cruelty.

"Where were you when the planes hit," attempts to orient us in time. But the question is only an attempt to make the impossible seem real. The businessman covered in ash and stumbling over the Brooklyn Bridge and the Seattle housewife waking up to see news coverage of it on television are more human fragments of a thing that is more than human. War.

War fragments perspectives, and though we have grown used to formal stories of war which began with a legal declaration of war and end with a surrender, these things have as little to do with war as a coroner's statement has to do with death. The laws of war, the treaties and the formalities are ways that human civilization attempts to make the wild force of human nature into a manageable thing.

Europeans and their colonial descendants may pen laws of war, but only they are constrained by them. In the real world outside the dinner parties of Washington D.C. and Brussels, there are no laws in war. Islamic law which has regulations for which foot to use when entering a bathroom (the left foot) and which side to sleep on (the right) has very few laws of war that cannot be nullified by necessity or even whim. On the battlefield, Islamic jurisprudence is boiled down to, Do what thou wilt in the cause of Allah, that is the whole of the law.

The West has tried to make war into a moral force by governing its means, without regard to its ends. But in the Muslim world, war is moral so long as its ends are Islamic-- the means are a technicality that Islamic scholars may squabble over the way they do over every petty matter, but in practice it's anything goes so long as it serves the Ummah. And even those technical debates over civilians in war and terrorism are governed by the ultimate welfare of the Ummah.

What happens when people who believe that the ends justify the means fight against people who believe that the ends never justify the means? In Afghanistan and Iraq the people who believed that the ends justify the means have gained their ends-- while we have lost both the ends and the means, not going far enough for the hawks and going too far for the doves.

This is the broken way of war that we practiced in Vietnam and Korea, constrained by invisible boundaries of our own making that did not prevent us from bombing cities, but did keep us from wiping out entire villages. To our enemies, these morals of ours seem every bit as senseless as their foot washing regulations seem to us. Why do the people who bombed Dresden beat their breasts over Mai Lai, and why was Shock and Awe acceptable, but not Abu Ghraib?

The answers invariably come down not to some externally consistent philosophy or divine law, but our need to feel good about ourselves by setting up a code that makes us seem moral in our own eyes. That makes us feel good about war. And the first law of that code is that killing en masse without really meaning to is more moral than pointing a gun at a man and pulling the trigger. This is the plausible deniability morality of the firing squad which uses enough dummy cartridges so that no one can be sure who fired the shot. No wonder drone attacks are a favorite of an anti-war administration putting as much automation and distance as possible between the soldier and his target.

Laws tell much about a people. Our need to legislate the use of force, and their need to legislate everything but the use of force. We have learned to be afraid of our lurking potential for evil.

It is a fear absent in Islam where a man who serves Allah cannot be a devil no matter what he does, but we know all too well that the devil can come wrapped in a saintly cause. We know it so well that we sometimes forget that while devils do occasionally come wearing halos, mostly they come wearing horns. To our great pain and woe, we have forgotten that we are not our own enemies.

A hundred years ago the attacks of September 11 would have marked the beginning of a war, but in this century they only marked a day of pain and sorrow, and years of a war that was never truly a war. It is this conflicted un-war that the anniversary marks. A war that never ends, because it never began.

War is a framework for violence, which the Muslim world hardly needs. While we search for an enemy to declare war on, all they need is a Fatwa with a clerical argument dubbing us the enemy, our nation, our soldiers, our civilians and our children. All of us.

We have no comfortable war framework except nation building which pretends that war is really the Peace Corps with bombs, habitat for humanity with the homes blown up before they can be rebuilt.

Are we fighting because they attacked us or because girls in Afghanistan can't go to school or for some figment of regional stability in a country where stability isn't even a word. That lack of clarity is fragmentation.  And fragmentation makes all stories seem senseless.

The pain and shock of the attacks gave us a measure of clarity. We were hit hard enough that we felt once again that justice was on our side and we no longer had to feel guilty for standing up for ourselves. In a society whose highest morality has become that of the victim, we were suddenly victims and entitled to defend ourselves.

The need to question ourselves temporarily went away and it felt good. For a brief shining moment the country became aware of external enemies and was united. We stopped being fragments warring with each other and we became Americans.

Had that clarity been sustained, the country today would be a dramatically different place. But it diminished and fell apart, and our identity went with it.We were once again our own enemies and the real enemy went unrecognized. Now the anniversary of the attacks has become like the memory of an old war that was fought once, but no longer really matters. The nation is at war, but it doesn't know that it's at war. And those who know that we are at war, often can't even state who the enemy is.

Without that clarity and unity, all we have are fragments, individual stories without the means to wrap them together. Stalin was right, a million deaths is a statistic unless you find a way to bring together what it means to an entire people. For the Holocaust, it was "Never Again." For 9/11 it was a more ambiguous, "United We Stand", but what do we stand for and what do we stand against?

The anniversaries have long since been reduced to a national therapy session, with pain released and healed in the media's own talking cure. But it isn't the pain that matters, it's what we do with it that counts. We have not yet lost the war-- but we are losing it, and unless we decide as a nation what we stand for and what we stand again, then we will lose. It will take time, like our banks we are too big to fail, but given enough appeasement, enough immigration and enough terrorism-- it will come.

Over a decade of war has passed, and before that a thousand years of war with lulls and pauses, but the din of the scimitar being sharpened for war never truly stopped. Each year that passes is a chance to learn the lessons of the years that have gone by and to remedy their mistakes. The best way to pay tribute to the dead is to unlearn our mistakes so that what happened to them will not happen again. Everything else is the fragmentation of self-indulgence, the therapy of tears, the sensitivity of grief, that will ease our pain, but not our fate.

Every man and woman must defeat their own doubts before they can defeat the enemy. Only then they can they battle the false reasonableness of the consensus that denies war and the enemy, with a consensus that briefly formed after the attacks and that forms even more briefly after every attack, to see ourselves in relation to the outside enemy. To unite against that enemy and to rebuild our identity around a common conflict with those who want to subjugate and destroy us. It may be ten more years before we are ready to do that, but as long as it takes-- that unity is our only hope.

The raw reaction in the aftermath of an event is the true one and the more distance we put between ourselves and that reaction also increases our distance from the truth.

The years of war have added layers of distancing between that first raw reaction when we saw the towers fall. And it is important this day to return not only to the emotion of that moment, but to the clarity that is our greatest weapon. Only that clarity will end this war.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Thank you for reading.


  1. Anonymous11/9/14

    Every sentence is a revelation. Amazing.

  2. I for one disagree. The only nation on earth that abides by the laws that were penned by the Europeans and their colonial descendants is Israel. The laws of war are not adhered to even by those who composed them. The examples are abundant.

  3. Anonymous11/9/14

    Once again, the Left, with plenty of help from the Right, picks and chooses the white meat and leaves the rest. You are absolutely correct Daniel, unity of purpose and recognizing our enemies, is our only hope.
    Unfortunately, the generation from which our future leaders will come, does not leave one with a lot of optimism.


  4. Anonymous11/9/14

    Naming our enemy was the problem under Bush when we engaged in another 'limited engagement' and it is still our problem. Terrorism is a tactic employed, not an adversary within itself. We send in our military and bind their hands and feet before we drop them off with ridiculous 'rules of engagement'. Good article. I just hope we work up the nerve to curb muslim aggression before my grand children have to grow up in a muslim controlled world.

  5. Anonymous11/9/14

    If only ISIS stood for some version of racist, homophobic teabagger.
    O could get all over that one, with a lot of help from Holder, of course.


  6. Anonymous11/9/14


    I agreed with you on everything except that 9/11 when it happened was a fresh wound that united but was quickly forgotten.

    I lived in Arizona at the time. I come from Brooklyn and worked plenty in Manhattan. I told everyone I knew that the solace coming from NPR, CNN, Leftist groups etc. was phony. It was simply meant to minimize action and not to comfort.

    I had seen them pull this with Jews and Israel. First time they feel your pain but they have a message. Second time they don't feel your pain and they say they are angry you failed to listen. Third time they jump up and cheer along with the enemy. Number three is what they are about all along.

    The Islamists didn't just choose the biggest building. They chose NYC because it is in many ways what is wrong with the USA. This is a place where wealthy lawyers can casually step over freezing homeless to get to their expensive apartment condos at the same time they start class action suits on behalf of the homeless that only pay off the lawyers. A heartless money pit like that is a great place for a believing terrorist to exploit.

  7. Anonymous11/9/14

    Until and unless we finally acknowledge that the enemy is Islam, and that Islam is a made-up "religion" that is really a primitive and dictatorial philosophy of conquest, we don't stand a chance of prevailing in this "war". All of the namby-pambies that want to see the possible good in others, and who are loath to condemn entire societies, cannot see that those societies have condemned themselves by choosing 7th-centruy barbarism over Western enlightenment. Our only hope for survival long-term is to wage unremitting war against all of the far-flung outposts of barbarism that fly that black flag.


  8. Anonymous11/9/14

    Having almost died on that day 13 years ago, I will never forget what happened and I will never forgive those who tried to kill me.

    Vet at the Pentagon

  9. I close my eyes and see that plane hitting the tower. The pain is as fresh as if it happened this morning.
    I didn't know the people who died there, but felt their loss almost as much as their loved ones.
    I will never forget. Never.

  10. Anonymous11/9/14

    Cogently argued, as always, and true. The real enemy is the "political theory that is Islam, conquest, and its religious component." This was how the Grand Mufti of Jeruselem described Islam in 1935, as he began colaberation with the Nazis. Why can we not take these savages at their word about their world view?

  11. Anonymous11/9/14

    So how do you defeat Islam? Someone answer me that question please.

  12. Anonymous11/9/14

    I'm conflicted on this article; the unity - needed as it is - is a consequence of some degree of overlap in ideas. The 2 dominate sides (left/right) view each other, and their ideas, as psychotic. The 9/11 shock certainly grabbed our attention away, like getting punched in the face makes me forget my poison ivy, for a while.

    Ideas that lead to initiation of force - largely carried out by the state - such as welfare, relationship interference (min-wage is a good example), bodily control (war on drugs) are the fundamental wedge that's ripping us apart; and the tribalism feeds on that.

    I'm pessimistic, we need a moral revolution fed by an intellectual one. One based on reason.

  13. Anonymous12/9/14

    "In a society whose highest morality has become that of the victim... "

    How can such a society survive? Any and every idea or plan that works can be snow plowed under with, "Ask me how I'll suffer under that plan... "

    Victims are thieves, they steal a nibble or a bite from every one else's life. They have stolen the words right off our lips with the conversational death ray of, "I'm offended". I think people reading this who have had an alcoholic in the family know exactly what I'm talking about.

    Once and for all look at, Viktor Frankle's "Man's Search for Meaning" wherein he said that no matter what is done to you there is one freedom that can't be taken from you, the freedom to choose your own attitude. So in truth the offendee should be saying, "I choose to be offended," to which any adult should reply, "And I don't give a s$$t."

    The latter is spelled that way for those so gentile that they would be offended at a different arraignment of letters on the screen.

  14. How much allah, Islam, Islamic, Caliphate & Koran do these terrorists have to put in their name and write on their banners for Obama to stop denying that they have anything to do with the "real"Islam? By never naming the problem he shall also shun to properly solve it.

  15. George of the Jungle12/9/14

    Islamism is simply a set of tactics; the strategy has always been Islam.

  16. In general I agree. We make war inefficiently and there is an element of nonsense in it. Where I disagree is thinking that this is a major problem when dealing with Islam. The primary problem is that we are at war with an ideology; a religion based political ideology called Islam.

    That is why we accomplish so little when going to war against these Islam dominated nation states, or Islam dominated terrorist organizations. Win, lose, or blunder about, nothing much is accomplished if Islam is left standing because Islam is the problem. One way or another, if we are going to end the current difficulties it is Islam we have to go after. The rest is practical method. Ruthless violence, expulsion, extermination, conversion, reformation or isolation, or whatever are the practical means.

  17. Anonymous12/9/14

    Islam is the enemy, but political correctness is the fatal flaw that prevents us from naming that enemy, or even admitting that we are at war at all. It's that little devil on our shoulder saying " you don't want people to say you are (prejudiced)(racist)(judgemental)(homophobic)(heteronormative) (fill in the blanks), do you?......
    If political correctness had existed 500 years ago, America would not exist.


Post a Comment

You May Also Like