Transcript The Importance of Terrorist Attacks of 9/11/01

The Importance of the
Terrorist Attacks of 9/11/01
PO 326: American Foreign Policy
US Foreign Policy at the Dawn of the
New Century
►
►
We have seen that the demise of the longstanding Soviet threat left
America without a fully cogent general approach to foreign policy in
the 1990s, though the tension between the moral and power political
requirements of USFP remained important
Al-Qaeda’s attacks on 9/11 impact American hegemony and its foreign
policy in new ways
 New enemy could give direction, but the enemy is elusive and shadowy –
difficult to defeat
 Radical Islamic terrorism seeks to impose lower-level costs to convince the
US to unilaterally change its Middle Eastern policy; not predicated on
overwhelming force as with the Soviets
 Seems to necessitate drastic changes in USFP – but some existing
considerations remain important
How can we dry up the wellspring of terrorism and safeguard against the
creation of new terrorists (Wilsonianism and “nation-building”)?
► How do we use existing forces to fight this new enemy (defense infrastructure)?
► How does the new war compare and contrast with notions about the state
system (Alliances? American unilateralism? Sovereignty?)
►
The GW Bush Administration Before
9/11
►
Prior to 9/11, the Bush Administration’s general FP approach differed
significantly from that of Clinton
 Predicated on a more “realist” view of the need to check existing and
emerging threats in an uncertain world
Key staff (Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld) largely realist thinkers – generally view key
threats to US security as emanating from other states
► Elevates pressure on major powers; limits human rights opposition to China in
favor of treating them as potential power adversary
► In regards to rogue states, seeks to develop national missile defense (NMD) –
willingly abrogates ABM Treaty to do so (offends Russians, alters security of
MAD)
► Sought to limit the “nation-building” military function so integral to Clinton’s
“reluctant humanitarian” approach; seeks development of armed forces capable
of serving traditional combat roles
►
►
►
In sum, the new administration develops a foreign policy somewhat
similar to Kennedy’s “flexible response” – involves the capacity to meet
threats of any kind to US security
9/11 represents a threat largely unanticipated and unaddressed by
Bush – how does his approach change?
History of Radical Islamic Terrorist
Attacks on the USA
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
Though there had been several instances of fundamentalist
terrorism against the US over two decades, terrorism is never at
the top of America’s foreign policy priority list before 9/11
(Why?)
Real Beginning: Takeover of US Embassy in Tehran, 1979 –
signal of animosity
Arab Muslim community
Bombing of US Marine Barracks in Beirut, October 1983
Bombing of Berlin Nightclub, April 1986
Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, December 1988
Truck Bombing of WTC, February 1993
Attack on Khobar Towers, June 1996
Car Bombing of US Embassies in Africa, August 1998
Bombing of USS Cole, October 2000
Patterns Before 9/11/01
►
►
►
►
►
Pan-Arab movement (not confined to one state)
State Sponsorship common at outset, but declines
All attacks perpetrated on US soldiers/citizens abroad
Casualties often high, but subject to “ceiling” (about 300)
American ambivalence in response
 Retribution against governments when state sponsorship suspected
 Prosecution
 Haphazard responses (Embassy bombings), no responses (USS Cole)
common
 Nuisance, not direct threat
►
Sense of security (Gulf War)
9/11/01
► Obviously, most spectacular attacks
► Highly coordinated (planning, acquiring
necessary
skills, dry runs, coordination on day of attack)
► Not all terrorists involved knew it was to be a
suicide mission
► 4 planes hijacked with box cutters and knives –
crashed into WTC and Pentagon
► Symbolism evident, but inflicting destruction and
loss of life was the primary motivation
► Establishment of symbiotic relationship with other
groups claiming Islam as secondary motivation
What is Al-Qaeda? What Does it
Want?
►
Association with Salafis
 Abandonment of true path by Muslim governments
 Reincarnation of Muhammad’s war to rid Islam of idolaters
►
US as universal enemy




►
►
►
Prop for illegitimate rulers
Poisoning of traditional society (cultural imperialism)
Presence in Saudi Arabia during Gulf War
Unification of various Salafiyya movements
Organization: Complex (both cell structure and evidence of
strict hierarchy)
Bin Laden – Unifier
 Financial Means
Fatwas
What is Al-Qaeda? What Does it
Want?
► OVERALL
o
o
GOAL: Elicit reversion to traditional society by
targeting sponsor of and influence over governments
embodying flawed Islam (US). They do not aim for
military defeat of the US, but for one of two outcomes:
Impose enough costs to get US to reconsider Middle East
policy (withdraw), thereby destroying support for Islamic
governments
Force US to engage in war that alienates the majority of
the umma, who will then engage in terrorist activity to
impose enough costs on the US to get them to stop the
war OR rise up and overthrow existing governments
The Bush Administration’s Initial
Responses to 9/11
► Key
FP goal: Destruction of Al-Qaeda,
capture/killing of Bin Laden, limitation of terrorist
“spin-offs” – but how to go about accomplishing
it?
► Administration has the benefit of vast initial
international and domestic support for war against
terror
► The Bush Administration’s initial and continuing
foreign policy responses to 9/11 reflect a mélange
of realist thought, existing threat perceptions, and
America’s prior lack of preparedness in dealing
with a terrorist enemy
The Bush Doctrine
►
Bush Doctrine: In the war on terrorism, “we will make no
distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor
them.” This statement involves several key assumptions
and positions, and will have enormous ramifications for
America’s activities and relations with the world
 Woodward – Bush constructs doctrine with little expert input
 No real definition or delineation of who is a terrorist or what
constitutes terrorism – Al-Qaeda is primary target, but Bush
explicitly states that all terrorists are targets - ambiguous
 Statement explicitly threatens the continued tenure of governments
that support terrorists – in doing so, Bush signals his desire to view
the new threat through traditional realism (state sovereignty).
Why?
► Allows
for the fighting of traditional wars against state enemies –
makes identification of enemies easier at precisely the point where
such identification is problematic
► Allows for leverage in determining enemies and better chances of
declarable victory
The Bush Doctrine
►
The Preventive or Preemptive War Corollary: The
Administration states rather specifically that, when links
between regimes and terrorists are readily identifiable, or
when regimes have interests in and show willingness to
arm terrorists (especially with WMD), the US has the right
to preemptively depose those regimes
 Expands on initial “harboring” language of doctrine
 Though no explicit connection made, seems to make targets of
rogue states and, especially, the “Axis of Evil” (Iraq, Iran, North
Korea)
 Key difficulty: Deciding what constitutes meaningful linkages – will
necessitate decisions made by the US that will ultimately cost it the
majority of its international support
US Foreign Policy Immediately
Following 9/11
► Like
previous presidents, Bush’s initial
approach to post-Cold War foreign policy
largely ignores terrorism
► When 9/11 occurs, Bush’s response is
largely predicated on a view of the terrorist
threat that is inherently realist and statist;
this view shapes America’s foreign policy
actions, impacts its alliances