It seemed like yesterday when the towers fell. Everyone who was alive at that moment has/had a September 11th story - where they were, what they were doing. And for several years afterwards the attacks loomed large over everything. Films, documentaries, conspiracy theories. Almost every writer of note, and a few who weren't, were expected to write their own 9-11 novel. There were memorials, official markings, solemn gatherings, minute silences. But then, this seminal moment of our time, a disaster that was as spectacular as anything Hollywood had served up, whose consequences devastated millions of people well beyond the long tail of casualty figures from the day, and utterly inescapable as an event has, weirdly, largely faded away.
Old father time could be the culprit. The world has sped up, culture is more fragmented, popular memory isn't what it used to be. You'd have to more or less be in your 30s to have first-hand memory of watching it happen live. And yet, that doesn't really work as an explanation. Arguably, the Kennedy assassination persists as a livelier presence in the popular imagination despite most people alive when it happened having gone. Looking at the perfunctory postings across British news sites on the quarter-century anniversary, they convey little sense of the shock that was sent through the transatlantic body politic. The only other event in recent years to match the wall-to-wall coverage of 9-11 is Covid at the height of the pandemic, and that too has been blotted out. In a world that's forever switched on, of endless positivity, trauma is to be negated by incorporation, usually as entertainment, or where that's not possible it goes unsaid and unremarked.
As we watched unfold on the news, there was a real sense of what now? What are the consequences? The myth of American invulnerability, an advantage it enjoyed during the two world wars, lay shattered and wrecked on New York's streets. It was a pivot point, a moment of carnage that changed everything. But did it really? Perhaps the fading of September 11th in wider culture is because, as things turned out, the trajectory of history, the direction American power has taken did not change in substance. Consider the counterfactual. How different would the world have been had the attacks not taken place? In their absence, would the invasion of Iraq, the million deaths that caused, and the resulting destabilisation of the Middle East not happened? Unlikely, seeing as Saddam Hussein's regime had nothing to do with 9-11 anyway. Afghanistan? The pressure for a "humanitarian" intervention there existed long before that sunny September morning. George W Bush's administration was hawkish, was stuffed to the gills with hard power advocates committed to maintaining US domination of the 21st century. The attacks were an excuse, a pretext for accelerating a timetable to remind the post-Cold War world who was boss by the crude assertion of military strength. The politics of that government had baked in war and catastrophe from the outset.
This is probably why 9-11 is fading. It was a shocking moment, but not one on which history turned. No attacks would not have made for a vastly different world to the one we've lived through since, which is why what-might-have-beens are absent. There was no innocence lost, nothing robbed save the lives cruelly taken. The future was set - the attacks only ensured we met it sooner than we otherwise might have.

8 comments:
I listened to it happening live, and it certainly doesn't seem like yesterday.
Arguably 2008 was far more significant to the trajectory that we are now on - even if it too was obviously baked into about that point in the timetable. The next 6-12 months looks very much like we will be remembering 2008 more than 2001. Or, at the whims of El Nino (and heat domes, and the AMOC) we may feel more like we are back in 2020.
Has any of the non-US media found prominent space for the mythologising of Charlie Kirk? Certainly he's been shut out of the "respectable" international press which I follow!
This is a very thought provoking piece. I’m old enough to remember the fall of the Berlin Wall, it was one of those sporadic events in my lifetime like 9/11 and Covid that could genuinely be described as extraordinary, but I think the older I get, and the more mature my understanding of history becomes the more I appreciate that as extraordinary as they are such turning points are more symbolic than strategic, they’re giant markers of underlying forces breaking the fourth wall.
I love narrative history, it’s a good way of conveying information, but the neatness tends to smooth over the multitude of messy, chaotic, invisible forces underneath. It’s why I find ‘Great Man theory’ entertaining but unsatisfying. Marxist dialectics grasps it a little better, but is still too formulaic, neatly packaging events into a grand narrative. We seem only to have the mental capacity to focus on the bits most salient to ourselves.
If 9/11 hadn’t happened the underlying forces would still have been there. Islamist reviavalist movements would still be chasing their Caliphate fantasies, still pushing back against the powers holding them back. If it wasn’t the ‘Great Satan’ as the figurehead of their enemies it would be another hegemon and its allies. And those allies would still be subject to the same kinds of geopolitical interests and forces. My subjective opinion is that the Middle East has been a distinctively unstable part of the world for the whole of recorded history, maybe because of its geographic location. And the Islamic world has been consistently fighting amongst itself since the very beginning, probably because of its distinctive origins. So, I think the Iraq War would still have happened, because just like Afghanistan the underlying forces would still be there, there just would have been a different pretext.
It saddens me to see @Kamo struggling in this way between a certain intellectual honesty and his atavistic urge to denigrate theose he perceives as 'other'. Meaning, largely, anyone not 'Western'.
The middle east is a modern term for what was for much of history the centre of world civilisation. Persia, Mesopotamia, the Hittite kingdom, Sumeria, even Egypt had a role, then Alexander's empire, the Greek city states across anatolia and the Black sea, on to Rome's Eastern empire and its successor, Byzantium, followed by the Ottoman Empire. These were long lasting and pretty stable. After all the Ottomans lasted 500 plus years and Byzantium nearer 1000. The idea that the 'middle east' has been "a distinctively unstable part of the world for the whole of recorded history" is utterly ignorant and at odds with the facts. I'd have said that Europe was a lot more unstable for most of that time.
But why let the truth get in the way of a preferred vision of reality?
Hi Sean, I'm glad someone appreciates me.
I said it was my opinion and I'll stick with it. I see the endless parade of different empires repeatedly carving up the Levant and Fertile Crescent for thousands of years as a sign of instability possibly/probably based on underlying geopolitical factors. You apparently see the same thing as a sign of stability, you're entitled to your opinion.
As you allude to, there aren't singular Greek, Egyptian, Persian, Mesopotamian etc... empires, there are a multitude of different formulations at different points in time, just as there are many different rival Caliphates and Sultinates. Even a relatively long-sustained one like the Ottoman Empire constituted different forms of vassalage.
It's a fascinating subject, but I don't think you need to restrict your comparison to 'Western' polities, other parts of the world have their own imperial histories (imperialism arguably being the preeminent political system until very recent times).
Agree with one of the other readers, this is a very thought provoking piece- Thank you. The memory is sharp.
Oddly, the 11th Sept I remember most vividly is from 1973. I was at a folk club in Nottingham and the MC suddenly announced the bombing of the presidential palace in Chile, killing Allende. It was in a year of imperial assertion, USA and Israel, that has polluted any vaguely socialist ambitions in the West since (indeed, democratic before and after in the case of USA).
Kamo's justification for claiming the Middle East to be "uniquely unstable" is certainly not too ambitious.
Over about 5000 KY, he says, it has been carved up lots of different ways.
Well, it has been roughly at the dead centre of all "civilizations" in existence across 75% of the planet's land surface, for as long as "civilization" has existed. Just like being the rope in a multi-directional tug of war. Hence the "Middle" part. (And then it turned out to have all the world's most easily accessible oil.)
Yet despite that, it has nonetheless seen relatively stable periods twice as long as the entire existence of the USA - which was not even continuously "stable".
@Kamo, no, I don't (appreciate you). Anyone who thinks that an empire that lasts for 1000 years is a sign of instability has lost touch with their reason. If we look at Western Europe over the same time period (500 - 1500 CE) we see a succession of petty kingdoms, minor 'empires', duchies, princedoms, republics, alliances, unions, disintegrations, invasions, endemic raiding and almost continual conflict. Perhaps based on, what was it, "underlying geopolitical factors" (no sh*t Sherlock).
The point being that Western Asia is not that different historically in its stability vs instability ratio than Western Europe. The big difference is what happened in the last 200 years, but that is too brief a time to use as a measure.
Post a Comment