I, like everyone else, remember exactly where I was 20 years ago when America was attacked by foreign terrorists. All these years later, the most surprising thing to me is that while all of the sacrifices of our military and national security professionals greatly reduced our risk of another such attack, our greatest threat is not from the outside, but from domestic extremists. Sadly, the bravery of those who prevented an attack on the U.S. Capitol on 9/11 yielded to a cowardly attack on 1/6 by right-wing extremists bent on destroying our democracy and domestic tranquillity. I think the greatest affront to the heroes of 9/11 would be turning a blind eye to the American ruffians trying to impose their will on others through violence. We cannot let domestic extremists accomplish what al-Qaida never did and never will.

Kelly Dahl, St. Louis County

•••

The Costs of War Project at Brown University released its latest update Sept. 1. It finds:

• In our post-9/11 wars, more than 929,000 people have died due to direct war violence. Millions more have died due to indirect effects.

• Roughly 38 million people were forced from their homes.

• The U.S. federal cost of these wars is more than $8 trillion ($6 trillion budgeted, plus $2 trillion committed for veterans' long-term care).

These wars have thrown entire regions of the planet into turmoil due to violence, refugee traffic, financial instability and tightening repression.

Yet how often are these accumulated costs of war reported? And if reported, where in our broken political and news environments can our revulsion find a voice?

The distorted mechanisms that led to these wars are still in place, as Australia's indispensable essayist Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) observes. No institutional changes were made, no policies were changed and no one was fired. Every presidential election since 9/11 has featured a candidate who actively supported the wars.

British journalist Sir Simon Jenkins wrote that these wars would mark a "victory of panic over reason, of brute force over common sense." He wrote this for publication on Sept 14, 2001.

Drew Hamre, Golden Valley

•••

On Sept. 12, 2001, America was reeling from the previous day's attacks on the World Trade Centers.

President George W. Bush told us that "freedom and democracy are under attack" and that "the enemy attacked all freedom-loving people everywhere in the world." Sympathy and support poured in from all over the world.

Two days later, U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee was the only member of Congress to vote against the Authorization for Use of Military Force. She explained that the resolution as a blank check for the president to attack anyone involved in the Sept. 11 events. She urged restraint, to step back and pause. She repeated words from a preacher at the memorial service: "As we act, let us not become the evil we deplore." She also reminded us that you don't make hard decisions when you're emotional — when you're feeling fear, anger, pain, anxiety.

How right she was.

Michael McDonald, St. Paul

The writer is president of Veterans For Peace Chapter 27 Twin Cities.

•••

Twenty years ago, some 10 months after a bitterly contested presidential election, a terrorist attack caused the tragic loss of American lives. In the days that followed, the minority party set aside partisan politics while we united — as a nation — in support of our commander in chief. U.S. politics "stopped at the water's edge."

Two weeks ago, nearly 10 months after a bitterly contested presidential election, a terrorist attack caused the tragic loss of American lives. In the days that followed, the minority party treated this as an opportunity to tear down our commander in chief, in support of an ongoing power grab. Now they had a "real" avenue of attack to stir up outrage — they could even stop pretending that critical race theory is taught in our public schools.

(Remember: The president did not initiate hostilities, and he did not send our young men and women into battle. U.S. troops were carrying out a mission enforcing an agreement by the previous president, when they were murdered by a suicide bomber.)

What does that say to you about character?

What does that say to you about patriotism?

James N. Reinertson, Prior Lake

•••

The Afghanistan withdrawal had the flavor of "surrender and escape."

A careful plan wouldn't have withdrawn military personnel before the evacuation was completed. A thoughtful plan would have recognized the vulnerability of Afghan forces, and wouldn't have rushed to close the high-capacity, sophisticated and more easily defended Bagram Air Base.

With a thoughtful plan, we wouldn't have allowed the Taliban to gain powerful military status, simply by confiscating sophisticated weapons. A careful plan wouldn't have permitted records and biometric data for our Afghan employees and U.S. citizens to fall into terrorist hands. Lives will be lost.

A thorough plan would have provided adequate troops for airport security. The U.S. didn't have adequate military resources to take control of the situation. We naively relied on the Taliban to support our best interests.

A responsible plan would have kept us in charge of our own destiny, and lives would have been spared.

Prior to withdrawal, our goal of denying terrorists safe sanctuary was being achieved. We had reached a reasonable balance of peace, safety and cost. A relatively small contingent could have maintained the existing equilibrium, and denied terrorists a sanctuary country.

Our leadership has exhibited weakness and uncertainty in recent events. Our adversaries are encouraged. Our allies are disappointed and perhaps afraid. Evil has gained ground. Sad things and bad things will now be inflicted on the Afghan people.

We thought we ended something, but the war on terror continues. It will follow us home.

Steve Bakke, Edina

I'm thrilled for U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar's successful treatment after her breast cancer diagnosis ("Klobuchar discloses breast cancer diagnosis, treatment," front page, Sept. 10). And I'm grateful that she had a hand in passing Obamacare, which protects insurance coverage given pre-existing conditions. I benefit from this as a breast cancer survivor since 2006 but one who is now undergoing treatment for advanced breast cancer.

Klobuchar is fortunate to have insurance coverage that supported early detection and the treatment plan. This is a critical factor for breast cancer treatment.

I am currently waiting on approval from UnitedHealthcare on treatment that my oncologist at the University of Minnesota Cancer Center recommends. This is a standard, approved drug — advertised directly to consumers. Yet, I have to wait for the insurance company to start treatment.

This is not the first time this has happened. My oncologist has had to advocate for me with an appointed physician at UnitedHealthcare for previous treatment. This takes time away from his practice and research.

I urge any family member or breast cancer patient to share their stories with Klobuchar's office. UnitedHealthcare must be held responsible for timely response and approval of treatment for cancer patients. It's a matter of life or death.

Beth B. Beutell, Eden Prairie

I fully agree with the Sept. 9 editorial "COVID tests are part of your duty to others." However, actually getting a test is not necessarily as easy as it sounds, or as it should be. I tried to schedule a test at Walgreens, the most convenient location for me, after attending a wedding last weekend. Numerous attempts to schedule via the Walgreens app, over three days, all ended when it refused to let me continue to finalize the appointment after I entered insurance information as required. I talked to staff at the pharmacy only to be told that they couldn't do anything to help, and the only way to get tested there is to schedule online.

Dana Higgins, Coon Rapids

We want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts here.