Let me know what you think
Presumed Problem
Following the 9/11 terrorist attack on New York and Washington, some feared that Saddam Hussein of Iraq was preparing to attack the US mainland with weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Solution
Invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Narrative
Remember the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center? No, not that one, the one in 1993. Explosives planted in a parking basement of the
north tower blew a hole through five stories of the building, with extensive damage to its infrastructure: electrical, sewage, etc. Six people were killed in the attack and about a thousands were injured. Tens of thousands were evacuated from the building.
The Clinton administration treated this attack as a crime and promised appropriate action. The FBI investigated, and eventually all but one of the criminals responsible were identified, arrested, tried, and sentenced to multiple life sentences. Without necessarily putting it in these words, President Bill Clinton chose the metaphor of crime to characterize the attack. It was dealt with as we deal with crimes. In the terms of this project, the problem was a crime in the World Trade Center; normal law enforcement procedures were the appropriate solution, and the solution worked.
Eight years later, a new set of attackers struck a more devastating blow to 
the World Trade Center towers, destroying them, with much more loss of
life. As we know, the 2001 attack was masterminded by a wealthy Saudi—Osama bin Laden—and the suicide flyers were 15 Saudis, one Egyptian, two from the United Arab Emirates, and one from Lebanon.
Unlike President Clinton in 1993, President George W. Bush chose the metaphor of war instead of crime. That difference in metaphor laid the groundwork for a disastrous solution without a problem. As the “problem” evolved over the months and years following 9/11/01, it was framed as an act of war against the United States, demanding a warlike response. Law enforcement need not apply.
So the problem was not just the attack on 9/11 but the imminent threat of an even worse attack, such as a nuclear attack on American soil. However, if Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda cohorts had possessed nukes, why didn’t they use them on 9/11? Moreover, wars are fought between nations, and no one regarded Osama or even al Qaeda as being an actual nation. While 15 of the 19 hijackers were, like Osama, from Saudi Arabia, no one suggested we had been attacked by the House of Saud.
Through a politically masterful legerdemain, it was argued that Iraq was really responsible for the 9/11 attack, despite no Iraqis being on the 
attacking planes. Nor did it matter that Saddam Hussein had refused to let al Qaeda operate in Iraq, and al Qaeda, in turn, viewed Saddam as a “secular Satan.” Close enough, as opinion polls soon found the American public blaming Saddam and Iraq for the attacks on 9/11.
Over time, the 9/11 dimension faded a bit and was simply replaced by the “problem” of Saddam planning an imminent, nuclear attack on America. All Americans became familiar with the abbreviation WMD—Weapons of Mass Destruction—and an argument ensued over whether Saddam and Iraq had any. Some cynics pointed out a proof in the matter: the Reagan administration had given Saddam WMDs in the 1980s for his war against Iran. So he had WMDs at one point. He used some against Iran and used some against dissidents in his own country.
The administration assumed that he still had a WMD arsenal that he was preparing to use on the USA.
Was the Problem Real?
When some in Congress questioned the reality of 
Saddam’s threat, they asked, “Where’s the smoking gun?” NSA Director Condoleezza Rice replied “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” That seemed a sufficient answer for some.
Nevertheless, American and international inspectors were granted access to Iraq and searched for evidence of nuclear, chemical, or biological WMDs. They found none. The U. S. invaded Iraq anyway and the search for WMDs continued until eventually President Bush would joke about it, looking beneath his podium before speaking and reporting, “No WMDs there.”
Few people thought highly of Saddam Hussein, who was eventually captured and executed, but there was never any evidence of a plan or preparations to attack America. The invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam was clearly a “solution” without a problem. But it was also a “solution” that caused real problems.
Negative Consequences
Let’s focus on some of the problems this solution created for the United States. As of July 13, 2015, the Defense Department reported 4,424 American casualties in Operation Iraqi Freedom—roughly double the number killed on 9/11. The number of non-Americans, 
especially Iraqis, killed is vastly larger, though the estimates vary widely, from tens of thousands to over a million. The same Defense Department report counted 31,951 Americans wounded in action, creating an as-yet insoluble problem for the Veterans Administration and civilian health care facilities. Many feel the nation has effectively turned its back on the returning wounded—except on Memorial Day, when politicians and others proclaim gratitude and respect all around.
At this writing, the economic cost of the war is estimated at around three to four trillion dollars. Since the Bush administration chose not to raise taxes to pay for the war, the cost has been met through an escalation of the national debt and cutbacks in domestic programs such as transportion, education, and health care.
Perhaps the worst problem is that the unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Iraq by the United States, with the immense death and suffering by Iraqis, fueled the view that America was at war with Islam, at war with all Muslims everywhere. While that was surely not the administration’s 
intention, a compelling case could and was made for it. The disruption of order in Iraq has spread through the area, most notably to Syria. Today, the Daesh (aka ISIL) have little trouble convincing young Muslims that America is set on destroying Islam, while, ironically, most of Daesh’s victims are fellow Muslims.
The refugee crisis caused by civilians fleeing Syria and neighboring areas has provided an opportunity for “Christian charity,” but the answer to that request has found many Americans arguing loudly against aiding any of Daesh’s victims. Several leading political figures, most notably, Donald Trump, have urged that we refuse entry to any Muslims and possibly crack down on native-born Americas who happen to be Muslims. Daesh finds it easier and easier to claim that America is at war with Islam.
© Earl Babbie 2016, all rights reserved Terms of Service/Privacy
Sources
Artwork from ShutterStock
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/05/us/1993-world-trade-center-bombing-fast-facts/, accessed July 14, 2015
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/27/us/september-11th-hijackers-fast-facts/index.html, accessed July 14, 2015
http://www.theguardian.com/global/2010/jan/03/yemen-anti-terrorism-rendition-security, accessed July 14, 2015
http://www.defense.gov/news/casualty.pdf, accessed July 14, 2015