In a recent political development in Denver, Milot Kiros, a 29-year-old, Ethiopian-born challenger, secured a victory against longtime Representative Diana DeGette. Kiros's ascent has, however, brought scrutiny to her past statements, particularly her interpretation of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Critics contend that Kiros's use of the term "inevitable" in reference to 9/11, while perhaps intended as a euphemism, functions to justify the attacks, a stance many find deeply troubling and disrespectful to the victims.
The 'Inevitable' Argument and Its Implications
During a recent interview, Kiros was questioned about whether the 9/11 attacks were an unavoidable consequence of American foreign policy. Her response:
"Inevitable in the sense that we destabilized a lot of the Middle East, which led people to believe that another act of violence was the only response. Our responsibility is to get rid of those conditions that lead to violence in the first place."
This characterization of the deliberate killing of nearly 3,000 Americans as "inevitable" is seen by many as suggesting that Usama bin Laden had no alternative but to orchestrate this massacre. Furthermore, it implies that had the United States acted differently, Bin Laden's actions might have been averted.
This perspective, according to its detractors, effectively justifies the 9/11 attacks. If one posits that the United States created conditions that left no option other than an attack of that magnitude, then assigning blame to Bin Laden becomes problematic, as he would, by this reasoning, have been without choice.
While some might argue that Kiros is merely identifying the root causes of 9/11, rather than excusing them, the argument against this interpretation is that asserting the attacks were "inevitable" implies Al Qaeda's actions were a necessary response to perceived grievances against U.S. foreign policy.
Historical Context and Rejection of Blame
For those who remember the profound impact of 9/11, the notion of its inevitability is strongly rejected. The United States, for decades prior to the attacks, often pursued peace initiatives in the Middle East. For example, in 2000, former President Bill Clinton noted that then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat "walked away from a once-in-a-lifetime peace opportunity." Just a year later, these efforts were tragically overshadowed by the attacks.
Many firmly resist any attempt to portray the United States as culpable for the 9/11 attacks. The identity of the perpetrator, Usama bin Laden, is clear, and his death at the hands of U.S. forces under former President Barack Obama was widely celebrated as an act of justice.
While Kiros's remarks suggest a justification for Bin Laden's actions based on America's conduct, her position is distinct from more extreme statements, such as those made by podcaster Hasan Piker, who controversially asserted that America "deserved" 9/11. The distinction lies in the nuance between attributing causation and outright declaring deservedness, though both views are highly contentious.
An Ideological Divide on 9/11's Meaning
The attempt by some progressive factions to reframe 9/11 as a day of national culpability, even when using terms like "inevitable" instead of "justified," is unlikely to resonate broadly beyond certain ideological circles. For most Americans, even decades later, the day represents collective remembrance, sacrifice, and national unity.
For some Democratic Socialists, the narrative around 9/11 appears to shift focus from the specific tragedy in New York, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, towards a perspective that views Middle Eastern terrorists as having no alternative but to resort to violence against Americans.
This reinterpretation echoes historical debates, where, for those who lived through the Cold War, the need to re-explain the dangers of communism seems as inexplicable as assigning blame to the victims of 9/11. However, these discussions persist.
It is crucial to recognize that not every act of murder and terrorism committed by jihadist groups globally is an inevitable outcome of American foreign policy. Indeed, many argue that U.S. policy has contributed significantly to global freedom and prosperity, particularly for the poor, more than any other nation in history.
The use of euphemisms to excuse such heinous acts must be challenged. Words carry weight, and the implication that the 9/11 attacks were an inevitable, and therefore justified, response to the actions of America and its people is a perspective many find deeply offensive.
