13 years after 9/11, the fight goes on

WASHINGTON - As Americans paused Thursday to remember those who died in the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil, they also confronted the possibility that the 13 exhausting years of war that followed may not be ending soon.
One the eve of another 9/11 anniversary, President Barack Obama announced an expansion of U.S. airstrikes against militants in Iraq and Syria.
The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks killed nearly 3,000 Americans. Now, more than twice as many have given their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. taxpayers have spent more than $4 trillion on both wars.
Thirteen years of war have left a profound mark on Americans.
The country struggles to provide a whole generation of combat veterans proper care for their wounds, physical and mental. Expanded domestic security and surveillance regimes have deepened the distrust between Americans and their government, and vice versa.
America’s elected leaders took the country to war in Iraq based on false intelligence, and some paid the price at the ballot box.
It’s been two years since U.S. troops left that country. It will be two more before U.S. troops leave Afghanistan. Yet for all the effort, Americans face real and growing threats.
Two years ago, four Americans were killed in a terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, including the U.S. ambassador. In just the past month, two American journalists have been executed by their militant captors.
Americans largely set aside their differences on Thursday, as they’ve done every Sept. 11 for 13 years.
But many Americans, and their elected representatives, are weary of war, and even those who support new military engagement are doing so with reluctance.
John Slenk, 68, of Kalamazoo, Mich., visited Arlington National Cemetery on Thursday and wondered if the U.S. could ever solve the conflicts in Iraq and Syria. But the 37-year law enforcement veteran knows from his experience that sometimes you have to get involved.
“I think what he’s trying to do is the right thing,” Slenk said of Obama, “but I know that’s going to be a difficult venture to go in there and resolve a faction in this world that we’ve come to live with.”
Near the U.S. Capitol, Jill Martinez, 65, a retired veterans advocate from Sacramento, Calif., said she supported airstrikes, but little else.
“We do need to take action,” she said, “but it’s got to be an action that everyone agrees to, and something hopefully does not include boots on the ground.”
Secretary of State John F. Kerry on Thursday won cautious promises from regional allies to help in the fight against the Islamic State.
Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states, together with Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq, declared in a joint statement issued in the Red Sea city of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, their support for a common stand against terrorism, and pledged concrete steps that included stopping foreign fighters on their way to Iraq and Syria and shutting down conduits for funding.
In addition, the communique promised to join in “aspects of a coordinated military campaign” against the Islamic State, adding the caveat that such support would come “as appropriate.” Turkey, a NATO ally, attended the talks, but did not sign the declaration.
Iraqi politicians of every stripe on Thursday applauded Obama’s pledge to destroy the Islamic State militants. The major criticism: He should have acted sooner.
Their generally upbeat statements reflect a change of mood in the Iraqi capital since the U.S. mounted airstrikes against Islamic State targets five weeks ago, and a growing confidence that the terror group’s dramatic advances can be reversed.
France is ready to wage airstrikes against Islamic militants.
The coalition shaping up to answer Obama’s call for international action to destroy the extremist group Islamic State appears to be broader and more committed than the one Washington was able to muster for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
But with the more diverse international force will come the complications of an operation riven by the deepening schism between Shiite and Sunni Muslims that is racking the Middle East. And the attempt to unite hostile forces with a shared aim of defeating the Sunni-led radical al-Qaeda splinter group is replete with internal conflicts among strange bedfellows with competing agendas.
The fundamental conflict within Islam, as represented by the respective powerhouses of Iran and Saudi Arabia, virtually precludes open collaboration among regional leaders reluctant to be seen as backing a mission supported by the opposite side.
Administration officials insist that cooperation with Iran is out of the question. Iraqis, Sunni Arab countries, Turkey, as well as Israel, would all be deeply alarmed by any hint that Washington and Tehran are working together. So while the United States is keeping Iran informed of its plans in Iraq, officials on both sides insist there will be no partnership.
Congress was largely receptive Thursday to Obama’s plan to attack the Islamic State, but lawmakers are divided on the details, and it’s not clear how quickly they will act on his push to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels.
Obama did get backing from House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who are crucial for Obama as he seeks congressional authorization to provide military training for moderate opposition forces in Syria.
“At this point in time it’s important that we give the president what he’s asking for,” Boehner said. “The issue here is about defeating a terrorist threat that is real and imminent.”
Boehner told reporters that, while he’ll support the president’s plan, there is still skepticism among his fellow Republicans.
“A lot of our members don’t feel like the campaign that was outlined last night will accomplish the mission that the president says, and that is to destroy ISIS,” he said, using a common acronym for the militant group.
Many of the lawmakers who stood on the Capitol steps and sang “God Bless America” on 9/11 found themselves still debating the role of the U.S. in policing the world.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he didn’t believe Obama’s statement Wednesday night that the country is safer now than it was 13 years ago.
“There are more terrorists, more organizations with more money, more capability, and more weapons to attack our homeland than existed before 9/11,” Graham said.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., another Obama critic and his 2008 presidential rival, went even further.
“Because of a feckless foreign policy, America is in greater danger than it has been, in some respects, in my lifetime,” said McCain, who’s 78.
Others were cautiously supportive of the president.
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said she was glad the president laid out “an aggressive, comprehensive plan” to fight the Islamic State, but she said she plans to ask the administration many tough questions.
“I voted against the war in Iraq and remember very well how our country was led into it,” she said. “So I understand how important it is for us in Congress to think very carefully about the consequences of military engagement.”
Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., who sang in unison with her colleagues on the Capitol steps 13 years ago, on Thursday said the U.S. cannot endure another open-ended conflict.
“There can be no blank checks and no proposals without real strategies connected to them,” she said.
Hundreds or even thousands of miles from the Capitol, the reaction was similarly mixed.
Mike Daisley, a lawyer from Charlotte, N.C., said the president made the case that there was no better option other than military force.
“What he put out there last night is a very good attempt at threading that difficult needle,” Daisley said.
Charles Williams of Shiloh, Ill., sided with the president’s proposal.
“If it’d be another 9/11, he’d be doing the right thing,” he said. “And it seems like that’s what it’s heading toward.”
Others expressed more reluctance.
Candace Williams of Belleville, Ill., was walking out of the post office carrying her daughter on her hip midday Thursday.
“I’d like for it to end,” she said.
Melissa Saunders of Fort Worth, Texas, worried about the length of the commitment.
“You can’t put a date on how things will go there,” Saunders said. “But the worry is that we could be there for years fighting.”
Elsa Barry, 91, of Fresno, Calif., who served in the Navy during World War II, said that just when conflict seems to be winding down in the Middle East, some new problem flares up.
“We have no business trying to settle everybody else’s problems,” she said.
Adin Hester, 75, of Visalia, Calif., identified himself as a “Reaganite” who thinks that Obama is not doing enough to protect the country.
However, Hester said he’d prefer it if U.S. troops stayed out of Syria.
“I’ve seen what we did in Iraq,” he said. “It’s coming back to haunt us.”
The Los Angeles Times contributed to this report.