Overview of September 11, 2001

The Terrorist Attacks in the US

President Bush’s ‘New War’

An Interim Assessment

Can the US-led Coalition Prevail?

Overview of September 11

After the terror attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on 9/11, the Bush admininistration has faced America's most daunting security challenge since the beginning of the Cold War. This has been the defining moment of the post-Cold War world.

Defining 9/11

Martha Crenshaw defines terrorism as “the deliberate and systematic use or threat of violence to coerce changes in political behaviour...” Secondly terrorism is essentially a political act, intended to alter the behaviour of others. The people who perpetrated this crime had a broader audience in mind than those at the receiving end. Terrorism is usually designed to convey a message to those beyond, a symbolic message communicating a political message to watching audiences. This was not irrational, but carefully and systematically planned. In light of this definition, the attacks on America on 11 September were probably the most audacious example of terrorism that has ever taken place. In the space of one deadly day, America was powerless to prevent attacks on its own soil against its symbols of economic power and prestige. These were stunning events, coming at enormous shock to the US and the world. The reaction of most people was a perception that we are now living in a new world.

America’s ‘New War’

The Bush administration declared an all-out war on what was called global terrorism. But this struggle, according to President Bush, was "a new war, a war that will require a new way of thinking". His administration had believed in the importance of military power, but without the assistance of a state, these terrorists had inflicted huge violence, showing that to America, failed states are risks. It was a stunning blow to the worlds only superpower. The US had assumed that no one would attack them because of a fear of retaliation. September 11 ended this perception.

The response from the USA was that either a country was “with us or against us”, and that everyone needed to join in to “fight to save the civilised world”. Following the declaration of war, the US was able to call on support – China, Russia and NZ, amongst others, expressed solidarity. Within 12 hours there was a resolution in the UN security council condemning the attack and authorising force to respond. The US was going to take a leadership role against a common enemy – terrorism.

An Interim Assessment

Since 9/11, the US has swiftly toppled two governments it considered to be ‘rogue’ regimes linked with terrorism-first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq. The Pentagon’s supremacy on the battlefield is unrivalled and unstoppable. But waging a war on terror is a complex business. Above all, it is a political battle to win hearts and minds. Military victories are meaningless if terror networks still profit from the way in which war is waged. Yet that is exactingly what appears to be happening. The wave of horror and sympathy for the victims of September 11 that spread across much of the world has largely evaporated. A catalyst in this process was the decision of the Bush administration to bypass the UN Security Council and launch a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

The US took economic steps against individuals and regimes linked with terrorists – threats of fines. Pakistan was initially told that either they help fight terrorism or suffer the consequences. They helped. It was clear early on who was responsible and the military phase of the campaign began on October 7. The Taleban regime in the interim period refused to cooperate with US by handing over Al Quaeda personelle hiding in their country. Shortly after the military campaign was launched in Afghanistan, the US and allies began to make headway. It was clear that the Taleban was buckling under pressure, as they lost control of all major cities. Multilateral diplomacy had a major role in facilitating this outcome. Pakistan provided intelligence, as did Russia with their relationship with the Northern Alliance. The Northern Alliance fought against the Taleban, generously equipped and supplied by US. By December, Al Quaeda was on the run and the Taleban was gone from power.

In January, 2002, Bush made his Axis of evil speech, naming North Korea, Iraq, and Iran as potential enemies. If necessary, he said, they would engage in pre-emptive attacks. From the US point of view, this was a strategic imperative to maintain US primacy. In a sense, the State of Union address was the end of a brief flirtation with multi-lateralism. The administration was showing real signs with coming to terms with what was happening, they stopped talking about failed states not being a threat and quite explicitly said that America was threatened not by conquering states but by failing ones and that their analysis of the 1990s was wrong. Poor governments provided sanctuaries for terrorists and were threats.

They were afraid that Iraq may provide Weapons of Mass Destruction to terrorists. Resolution 1441 was passed in the UN, authorising unrestricted weapons inspection in Iraq. However, the Bush administration became sceptical as to whether the inspectors would find the suspected arsenals. Bush seeked to bring inspection to an end and get support for a resolution to enable the use of arms to bring about the end of the regime. The Security Council, under pressure, did not give their support, so Bush bypassed the UN and lead the Coalition of the Willing in March 2003 in a military campaign to depose Hussein and limit the threat of terrorism. 2 months later they had victory.

Iraq remains a security nightmare however, to this day. A nationwide government was established after 3 years, but faces formidable problems with making the country cohere, let alone running the country. While the war on terror continues, the international standing of the US is falling. Their reputation is now lower than at any time since Vietnam, and declining still. In an inter-connected world, they need international support and cooperation.

Bush declared war on terrorism without defining who or what was the enemy, in hindsight we see now was a fundamental error. Because he wasn’t specific, he ran the risk that the campaign might be hijacked. By declaring war on terrorism, he fueled demand for military action gainst an identifiable foe. It is, however, not possible to wage war against terrorists as they will not engage in war and cannot be overcome on the battlefield. The Administrations efforts to strengthen national security at expense of adherance to human rights and the rule of law was a propaganda windfall for terrorists, such scandals as Abu Graid, Guantanamo Bay and Haditha.

Can America Prevail?

The big challenge for the US after September 11 is not just with terrorism, but also for the Bush administration to recognise that it will have to broaden its approach to national security if it is to succeed in this struggle. An effective unilateral war on terrorism by the Bush administration and its close allies simply cannot be sustained in an increasingly interconnected world. In the age of globalization, it is the support of other nations and multinational institutions that offers the best hope that America, and the rest of the world, can enjoy greater security.