They were "supporting" such in the sense that the entire economy was mobilized on a wartime footing.
Yes. And our economy was (and is) mobilized to support a military that is much larger than Japan's was then. So our economy is objectively doing more to support our military efforts than Japan's economy was - and Manhattan is one of the centers of that economy.
The US government wasn't attacking Al Qaeda, or waging war on Islam, or whatever, back in 2001.
1998 - US bombs the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for Al Qaeda attacks against US embassies. It is suspected of producing chemical weapon components for Al Qaeda.
1998 - The US begins Operation Infinite Reach, a military campaign to destroy Al Qaeda. Targets include:
-Al Farouq training camp
-Muawai training camp
-Training camp in the Jarawah area near Khost
-The Zhawar Kili al-Badr compound (a meeting place for Al Qaeda leaders.)
You were saying?
There was no state of war, and there was no corresponding total mobilization of the economy for such.
In 2000 we spent a third of a trillion dollars on our military. Much of the US economy is indeed mobilized to support our military - military bases, support for bases, defense contractors, veteran's hospitals, security for military bases etc etc etc. We spend more than any country in the past 20 years has spent for any war - and during most of those years we were indeed involved in one war or another.
So by any definitions, yes, our economy was supporting a war machine.
Emphatically not. The goals in question have to, themselves, be justifiable.
Absoutely not; that's absurd. Are you honestly saying that if the US accidentally attacked a Chinese aircraft, and a nuclear war resulted, and we won - we could claim that we were in the wrong?
Of course not. The victors are always "right" - and morality is changed to support that. Just look at this very thread; people are justifying using nuclear weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. Do you really think that there is any case where a foreign military could use hydrogen bombs on LA and we'd say as a country "well, that was probably justified?"
We didn't take any (military) actions against Al Qaeda in 2000 after the US Cole, nor can I find any reference to the phrase "war on terror" from that period.
See above. I think we launched something like 100 cruise missiles over the course of that "operation."
But even if you insist on calling it "war," I see no grounds for labelling whatever state of relations existed at the time as "total war." You are just quibbling here, and not attempting a material rebuttal of my position.
Your position that a war isn't a war unless it's a "total war" is silly. That's like claiming that terrorism isn't terrorism unless it's extreme terrorism, or that rape isn't rape unless it's forcible rape (which, as I recall, a few congressmen tried a while back; fortunately the effort died quickly.) It's war.
We declared the "War on Terror" and then started a military campaign to try to wipe out Al Qaeda. They declared war on us. We might have not meant it, but words do have meanings - and we used them.
Easy to say in hindsight - but even if we accept that reading, the ongoing human costs of the continuance of the war were staggering.
Yes, they are. Indeed they are the costs of war and we'd be fools to think otherwise.
This whole discussion is somewhat silly. It DOESN'T MATTER what facile justifications we use to make ourselves feel better, or what silly excuses the other side uses. We did what we could to win the war as fast as possible, because we wanted to win. Other countries and organizations will do the same thing to us - and will be just as justified in their atrocities as we were in ours. In war people will do anything to win. Indeed, that's sort of the definition.
My hope is that in the future we don't take such a cavalier approach to war, use weasel words like "well, this is the good sort of war, not a total war." It's war. Anything is justified if it helps you win. If you don't want to see those horrors - don't start wars.