Mending the Transatlantic Rift Essay

The 9/11 terrorist attacks transformed America’s outlook on foreign policy. The attacks redirected the policy from containment of the Soviets during the Cold War about a decade prior, to one against terrorism, a so-called “war on terrorism.” The U.S. government attacked and overthrew the Talib government in return, destroying Al Qaeda’s Afghan bases. They turned their attention to Iraq and invaded it to remove any threat of weapons of mass destruction in spite of opposition from France, Germany, and Russia. The supporters and opposers of the war created new strains within the members of the NATO alliance.

There are striking parallels between the eras of the Cold War and the War on Terror and America’s International Relations. After World War II, the Truman Doctrine became America’s ideology for combating communism throughout the globe. Similarly, after the September 11th terrorist attacks in 2001, America’s philosophy was then succeeded by the Bush Doctrine to battle the new threat, the war on terror. In addition, both the long climatic wars of each era (Vietnam War and War in Iraq) shared comparable lead-ups, beginnings, and endings in their conflicts in each region, their politics and shared resentment by the American public. The final parallel is the common suspicions

September 11th, 2001 has changed and defined American foreign policy for the past two decades. Enemies of the United States are no longer only other nations, but also terrorist groups, which operate transnationally and even between continents. On the night of September 11th, in the aftermath of the deadliest terror attack the world has seen, former President George W. Bush and his War Cabinet officially declared the start of the “War on Terror”. Bush would say on September 19th, 2001,

After World War 2, faith in the United States government was at an all time high. A brief, superficial, and weak understanding of the history on the aftermath of World War 2 leads the reader to understand that not only did the United States help defeat the evil Nazis, the fascist Italians, and the imperial Japanese. In the wake of World War 2, the United States of America ended up cementing itself as a world power – if not the world power, usurping the empty throne previously held by Great Britain and subsequently sharing it with the Soviet Union. Yet as is typical, there can never be two champions. There can never be two reigning super victors – one of the two powers had to lose. So began the conflict that never was, the cold war – a global chess match of attrition. Neither the USSR nor the USA would outright engage in conflicts with one another, but in the thirst and pursuit for more influence and power, they continually opposed each other through pawn states on a global scale for approximately 44 years. This type of warfare was known as ‘proxy’ warfare, and though the dates specifically for the Cold War are not known, the common dates for the war range from 1947 to 1991. With this understanding, it can also be inferred that it was not just a war for power, it was a war of ideologies.

The government’s response to the September 11, 2001 events was quick and decisive. Government officials attributed responsibility for the attack to Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda organization. One result was an announced policy shift from deterrence to preemption, generally referred to as the “Bush Doctrine.” (National Security Strategy, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html].) Given the potential consequences of terrorist attacks employing weapons of mass destruction, government decision makers felt that the nation could not afford to sit back, wait for attacks to occur, and then respond. The nation was mobilized; combating terrorism and crippling Al Qaeda became top national priorities. The use of military force against different terrorist groups and infrastructure gained increasing acceptance in Government policy circles. In addition, a February 14, 2003, National Strategy for Combating Terrorism [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030214-7.html] gave more emphasis to the role of international cooperation, law enforcement and economic development in countering terrorism.

After U.S. had an isolationist foreign policy for a long time, U.S. has shifted its power from isolationism to the internationalism. In international relations, united states is the dominate force, which has the biggest military arsenal in the world. However, the position on how the United States should deal with terror is not only relay on the preeminent power that American security has. It also depends on the policymaker. According to James N. Rosenau, the foreign policy can be influenced by five potential resources(Michael Cox &Doug Stokes p6). There are external government, social environments, government structure, bureaucratic roles and personalities of individuals. The directions in U.S. foreign policy moves differently because

Rupp, R. (2000). NATO 1949 and NATO 2000: From the Common defense toward collective security. Journal of Strategic Studies, 23(3), 154-176.

The terrorist attack on 9/11 rattled the nation. In the immediate aftermath of the attack, it was entirely necessary for a resonant response by the United States to show that the country does not stand for such blatant disregard of human life. With the benefit of hindsight, it is now possible to look back and discern what factors drove the changes that were made to foreign and domestic policy as a direct result of the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately, both policy changes were emotionally driven, but it appears quite clear that the domestic response was largely anxiety driven, while the foreign policy response was dominated by anger and a desire for

It was the terrorist attack that occurred on September 11, 2001 that shook America and the rest of the world and contributed to the rise of Islamic militancy and terrorism. On that day, members from al-Quaeda, an Islamic militant group, had hijacked four planes and caused destruction on American soil. As a result, President George W. Bush was able to gain public support on his “tough talk about bringing terrorists to justice.” (826) President Bush ultimately declared and upheld “a global war on terror” that ignited the passions of many Americans and received much support from other nations. Pushing on with the support of many people on his international objectives, President Bush unsucessfully dispatched “American forces to Afghanistan to hunt down bin Laden, destroy al-Quaeda training camps, and topple the Taliban government that had provided a haven for the terrorists.” (826)

Despite what some say, President George W. Bush had a very clear vision for the Middle East. He wanted to topple Saddam Hussein and his repressive regime, recover or destroy the Republican Guard’s weapons of mass destruction, and help the Iraqi people establish a new Democratic style government (Gilley, 2013). He felt that Iraq was the key to spreading Democracy throughout the Middle East. Furthermore, his Middle East policy, known as the “Freedom Agenda”, was President Bush’s response to the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. The effectiveness of the Freedom Agenda is mixed. His policies did take down tyrannical leaders and opened the door for Democracy, but it also left a void for radical groups to come in and take over.

It is very important to have such literature like Andrei Markovits’ Uncouth Nation: Why Europe Dislikes America because, there is anti-Americanism in Europe and Markovits is dealing with a real phenomenon that is affecting America. A number of people argue that there is no anti-Americanism in Europe and there are only disagreements with specific American policies yet this is a real issue that was carefully covered by Markovits. This book reveals the resentment and antipathy towards and against America and how it has been there since time immemorial even before America became a super power and Europe’s rival. This ambivalence was there following the end of the cold war and after the September 11th attacks, this ambivalence has given out way to absolute unequivocal hostility.

The United States created a more protective stance on homeland security after the terrorist attacks in 2001. This defensive mentality has effected allies and enemies alike and placed more stringent security barriers at America’s gates. The changing global environment created by these terrorist activities has challenged the transatlantic relationship and its ability to produce effective counter measures. Cooperation between the US and the EU in this arena is critical to the security and economic prosperity of both regions. The EU’s limited executive authority over Justice and Homeland Affairs presents obstacles to the equal implementation of counter-terrorism measures throughout the Union.

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 altered the environment of international relations, as the world saw first hand the damage a non-state actor can inflict on a regional hegemon. While non-state actors have always existed, for example maritime pirates or private mercenaries, the events of 9/11 provided non-state actors, in the form of terrorist organizations, the platform needed to expand their influence. Despite the urgency posed by the rise of non-state actors, the field of international relations continues to use an interstate framework to analyze conflict. This is the natural result of a long history of state-centered analysis that came to formal fruition post-WWI and dominated through the Cold War. Even after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, this discipline remained intact. However, as most conflicts today involve non-state actors, such as terrorist organizations in the mountains of Afghanistan and pirates off the coast of Somalia, this state-centric framework is deteriorating.

This paper analyzes the multifaceted and ever evolving relationship between the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Trade Organization (NATO). With the globalization of security concerns and with the series of major terrorist attacks beginning on September 11, 2001, cooperation between these two major powers is becoming increasingly important and hotly debated. In this day and age international security is of the utmost importance. The world leaders in international security are the North Atlantic Trade Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU). This paper explores the relationship between these two institutions in the context of security policies, members, global effect, and the participation and influence of the United States.

NATO starts the year 2000 with the issue of concern. The European Allies' defense capability, stabilization efforts in the Balkans, and relations with Russia are at the top of a highly charged agenda.