The September 11 Terrorist Attacks

“When war is thrust upon the nation, the President had not only the authority but the responsibility to ‘resist force by force.’” –U.S. Supreme Court ruling of the Prize Cases, 1862 (67 U.S. 6335).

The terrorist attacks of September 11, altered American 's perceptions of the role in the world by strongly supporting the increased spending on national security and counterterrorism. Also, Americans have become more aware of how and where to engage in the world. As a result of the attacks, the US now has a defense that totals to nearly half the global total and has military dominance over scene, air, and space. The US also has the capability to dispatch massive military power anywhere in the world making them the system shaper. You may ask yourself just have a bad or do you check on September 11, 2001 was that led to this chaos and security becoming abnormally tight you may ask yourself just have a bad do you check on September 11, 2001

Comprehending the underlying authority for the President of the United States to authorize the international use of military operations in order to respond to an attack or as a counter-terrorism strategy, may be difficult to fathom for those who are not familiar with practices and philosophies associated in this realm. Conducting military operations against the Taliban government in Afghanistan, detaining suspected terrorists, both indefinitely domestically and abroad, and the use of unmanned drones to disrupt and destroy suspected terrorists and those aiding them in areas such as Pakistan fall under the umbrella of what the US has been able to accomplish in our last 12 years during the Global War on Terror.

Beginning with the creation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, up to the current Obama doctrine, presidential doctrines have dominated United States foreign policy. A presidential doctrine highlights the goals and positions for United States foreign affairs outlined by the sitting president. Many of the country’s major foreign policy successes or disasters can be explained by tracing the doctrines of sitting or previous presidents and analyzing their evolution and eventual impact on world events. After established, a presidential doctrine often takes on a life of its own. This can be explained by the military resources and human capital involved in carrying out these doctrines. Future presidents often feel compelled to abide by previous doctrines, or find the reality of change can only be done with incremental changes over a period of years. For this reason, presidential doctrines often outlive their creators and consequently effect American foreign policy for years to come.

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.

The 9/11 terrorist attacks by al qaeda profoundly impacted the daily lives of Americans by changing our culture, politics and economy. The 9/11 attacks caused the U.S. to heighten security at airport to prevent terrorists from using planes as missiles in the future. This effect can still be seen today with the TSA and the extensive security scan/search that everyone has to go through. This adds a significant amount of time that you have travel as the TSA recommends that you show up two hours before your flight depart for its destination(tsa.gov).

The 9/11 attacks provided new insights to security agencies, especially in their role of detecting and thwarting terrorist activities. Of particular interest was the association of various racial groups, especially those from the Muslim community with terrorism. Therefore, security agencies invested in isolating these racial groups as suspects of terrorism due to their associated connection with terrorism. However, this racial profiling cannot be justified as a counterterrorism measure since it is a flawed line of reasoning. For instance, it is not always the case that some racial groups are always responsible for terrorism. In fact, the 9/11 events would not have been possible without collaborators inside the United States who are not necessarily

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,

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.

The war in Afghanistan started was a direct response to the 9/11 attacks. This deadly terrorist acts killed thousands of American citizens. After the attack president bush made it clear that whoever is responsible for this horrendous act of violence will pay and will be brought to justice. After the American intelligence agencies found that Al- Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks president bush gave the Taliban leaders in Afghanistan an ultimatum for harboring al-Qaeda and their leader which says hand over the terrorist that are responsible for the attacks or share their fate. The Taliban leadership requested the American government to provide any avoidance proving that Osama bin-Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks before they hand him over to the American government. The Bush administration said that the Taliban should hand over Osama bin-laden without any conditions or suffer the same consequences as Al-Qaeda. Less than a month after the 9/11 attacks the war began. The war in Afghanistan was going on for more than a decade and there is no end in sight. The war costs the U.S more than a trillion dollars which is having a negative effect on the economy, with all the money and resources that were poured into Afghanistan, the lives people in Afghanistan didn’t improve instead it only got worse.

I would like to support my own position (E), which is that the United States should take military action when both the physical safety and citizens of the country is threatened as well as when a situation in another country becomes drastically dangerous. For example, once 9/11 attacks occurred in America and killed "nearly 3000 people", it posed an accentuated threat, making it ideal and just for military action to take place. It would be a way to prevent terrorists attacks such as that one from ever occurring again. While the United States should take care and benefit themselves, it is salient for them to also consider taking military action when a different and more vulnerable country is in a profound state. As it is stated in the text,

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

United States Foreign Policy has always been in a constant form of metamorphosis. Gradually, since the birth of the United States of America, the country has been slowly evolving it’s policies and relations with other countries. The United States began its history as a insignificant isolated nation. It slowly overtime would change to what the powerhouse that it is today: A Global Superpower.

“Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward, and freedom will be defended.”

This message of this quote from President Bush is clear, America is not immune from the evils of the world, therefore America will take action to protect both the ideals and people of the free world. To defend against the evils of terrorism, America would go to war with terrorism, which will ultimately lead to the war on terror. President Bush made this stance clear, he stated that “every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists”. Now moving away from President Bush’s speech on September 20, to focus on the more formal Bush Doctrine. The Bush Doctrine was a range of policies that gave the United States the right to protect itself against countries that harbour or give aid to terrorist