DOCSLIB.ORG

Terrifying Thoughts: Power, Order, and Terror After 9/11

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Terrifying Thoughts: Power, Order, and Terror After 9/11 Global Governance 11 (2005), 247–271 REVIEW ESSAY Terrifying Thoughts: Power, Order, and Terror After 9/11 Steven E. Miller The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, had a profound effect on the Bush administration’s foreign policy. This review essay examines a set of books and documents that illuminate the dominant U.S. threat perceptions in the post–September 11 environment and analyze both the strategies and the new directions that have emerged in U.S. policy in response to the new threat perceptions. Several of the books under review explore the deep socioeconomic and ideological origins of the wide support found in the U.S. public for the Bush administration’s bold and often controversial policy choices. Taken together, these works convey the impression that Bush’s strategic impulses will have considerable staying power in the U.S. body politic. KEYWORDS: Bush doctrine, terrorism/war on terrorism, grand strategy, terrorist threat, U.S. foreign policy. Richard A. Clarke, et al., Defeating the Jihadists: A Blueprint for Action (New York: Century Foundation Press, 2004), 172 pp. David Frum and Richard Perle, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror (New York: Ballantine Books, 2004), 280 pp. John Lewis Gaddis, Surprise, Security, and the American Experience (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004), 150 pp. Anatol Lieven, America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 274 pp. Walter Russell Mead, Power, Terror, Peace and War: America’s Grand Strategy in a World at Risk, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004), 226 pp. The National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction (Wash- ington, D.C.: White House, December 2002), 6 pp. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (Wash- ington, D.C.: White House, September 2002), 31 pp. 247 248 Terrifying Thoughts he collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 destroyed the Cold War international order. With unexpected suddenness, the central T configuration of power that ordered world affairs vanished. To be sure, some artifacts of the old order persisted—notably the U.S. alliance system—but they existed now in a vastly different context and played different, less central roles. And although President George H. W. Bush almost immediately (but prematurely) proclaimed a new world order, in fact the years after the collapse of the Soviet Union were marked by a protracted struggle to reconceive the international order and to define a clear and meaningful role for the United States in that order. During the 1990s, the unstructured character of the international system gave rise to wide-ranging debate about what new order might be feasible and desirable. But there remained a sense that the international order was still inchoate, that a powerful ordering principle was still lacking, that a new structure for global affairs had yet to be revealed. And then came the terrible attacks of September 11, 2001. Like a bolt of lightening across a darkened sky, September 11 provided a sud- den illumination of the strategic landscape. In the harsh light of Sep- tember 11, Washington viewed a different world, one more dangerous, more menacing, full of enemies and threats. Further, having been attacked, the United States believed itself to be at war. The Bush admin- istration responded in dramatic fashion to the new world that had been revealed by September 11, striking off in bold, assertive, and often con- troversial directions, moving with relentless and even unstoppable determination to take whatever actions it deemed appropriate and nec- essary to confront the newly understood threats and to enhance U.S. security. With the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration found its mission, its central organizing principle—indeed, its conception of the new international order. It is a fundamentally important reality that Washington’s sense of the new order has little in common with and is uncongenial to those interested in building or strengthening a system of global governance. Bush’s international order is structured around threats and responses to threats rather than around laws and institutions. In Bush’s new order, the United States is governed by the requirements of national security and the imperatives of war, and it judges the behavior and the relevance of other actors and instruments in those contexts. In this conception, the international order is primarily shaped by the great rivalry at the core of the system. The key elements of the new order are patterns of alignment (“You are either with us or against us,” as President Bush famously said), coalitions of the willing, and bilateral arrangements—all aimed at facilitating U.S. efforts against the Islamist terrorist enemies. Inter-.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Leftist Case for War in Iraq •fi William Shawcross, Allies
    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 27, Issue 6 2003 Article 6 Vengeance And Empire: The Leftist Case for War in Iraq – William Shawcross, Allies: The U.S., Britain, Europe, and the War in Iraq Hal Blanchard∗ ∗ Copyright c 2003 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj Vengeance And Empire: The Leftist Case for War in Iraq – William Shawcross, Allies: The U.S., Britain, Europe, and the War in Iraq Hal Blanchard Abstract Shawcross is superbly equipped to assess the impact of rogue States and terrorist organizations on global security. He is also well placed to comment on the risks of preemptive invasion for existing alliances and the future prospects for the international rule of law. An analysis of the ways in which the international community has “confronted evil,” Shawcross’ brief polemic argues that U.S. President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were right to go to war without UN clearance, and that the hypocrisy of Jacques Chirac was largely responsible for the collapse of international consensus over the war. His curious identification with Bush and his neoconservative allies as the most qualified to implement this humanitarian agenda, however, fails to recognize essential differences between the leftist case for war and the hard-line justification for regime change in Iraq. BOOK REVIEW VENGEANCE AND EMPIRE: THE LEFTIST CASE FOR WAR IN IRAQ WILLIAM SHAWCROSS, ALLIES: THE U.S., BRITAIN, EUROPE, AND THE WAR IN IRAQ* Hal Blanchard** INTRODUCTION In early 2002, as the war in Afghanistan came to an end and a new interim government took power in Kabul,1 Vice President Richard Cheney was discussing with President George W.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpreting the Jackson Legacy Peter Beinart
    Henry M. Jackson Foundation 1501 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1580 Seattle, Washington 98101-3225 Telephone: 206.682.8565 Fax: 206.682.8961 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.hmjackson.org Henry M. Jackson Foundation TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY LECTURE nterpreting the JacksonI Legacy in a Post-9/11 Landscape By Peter Beinart About the Foundation Since its establishment in 1983, the Henry M. Jackson Foundation has been dedicated to helping nonprofit organizations and educational institutions in the United States and Russia. The Foundation’s grants provide essential support and seed funding for new initiatives that offer promising models for replication and address critical issues in four areas in which the late Senator Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson played a key leadership role during his forty-three- year tenure in the United States Congress: Inter- national Affairs Education, Environment and Nat- ural Resources Management, Public Service, and Human Rights. About this Publication On the occasion of its twenty-fifth anniversary, the Henry M. Jackson Foundation hosted a dinner and conversation at the National Press Club in Wash- ington, D.C.. Journalist Peter Beinart was invited to share his thoughts on the Jackson legacy and the Foundation’s commemorative publication, The Nature of Leadership, Lessons from an Exemplary Statesman. Foundation Executive Director Lara Iglitzin served as moderator for the discussion that followed his remarks. nterpreting the JacksonI Legacy in a Post-9/11 Landscape WASHINGTON, D.C. • SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 y y Connoll r y Har Photo b PETER BEINART Peter Beinart is a senior fellow at The Council on Foreign Relations. He is also editor-at-large of The New Republic, a Time contributor, and a monthly columnist for The Washington Post.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bush Revolution: the Remaking of America's Foreign Policy
    The Bush Revolution: The Remaking of America’s Foreign Policy Ivo H. Daalder and James M. Lindsay The Brookings Institution April 2003 George W. Bush campaigned for the presidency on the promise of a “humble” foreign policy that would avoid his predecessor’s mistake in “overcommitting our military around the world.”1 During his first seven months as president he focused his attention primarily on domestic affairs. That all changed over the succeeding twenty months. The United States waged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. troops went to Georgia, the Philippines, and Yemen to help those governments defeat terrorist groups operating on their soil. Rather than cheering American humility, people and governments around the world denounced American arrogance. Critics complained that the motto of the United States had become oderint dum metuant—Let them hate as long as they fear. September 11 explains why foreign policy became the consuming passion of Bush’s presidency. Once commercial jetliners plowed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it is unimaginable that foreign policy wouldn’t have become the overriding priority of any American president. Still, the terrorist attacks by themselves don’t explain why Bush chose to respond as he did. Few Americans and even fewer foreigners thought in the fall of 2001 that attacks organized by Islamic extremists seeking to restore the caliphate would culminate in a war to overthrow the secular tyrant Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Yet the path from the smoking ruins in New York City and Northern Virginia to the battle of Baghdad was not the case of a White House cynically manipulating a historic catastrophe to carry out a pre-planned agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • Neoconservatism Hoover Press : Berkowitz/Conservative Hberkc Ch5 Mp 104 Rev1 Page 104 Hoover Press : Berkowitz/Conservative Hberkc Ch5 Mp 105 Rev1 Page 105
    Hoover Press : Berkowitz/Conservative hberkc ch5 Mp_103 rev1 page 103 part iii Neoconservatism Hoover Press : Berkowitz/Conservative hberkc ch5 Mp_104 rev1 page 104 Hoover Press : Berkowitz/Conservative hberkc ch5 Mp_105 rev1 page 105 chapter five The Neoconservative Journey Jacob Heilbrunn The Neoconservative Conspiracy The longer the United States struggles to impose order in postwar Iraq, the harsher indictments of the George W. Bush administration’s foreign policy are becoming. “Acquiring additional burdens by engag- ing in new wars of liberation is the last thing the United States needs,” declared one Bush critic in Foreign Affairs. “The principal problem is the mistaken belief that democracy is a talisman for all the world’s ills, and that the United States has a responsibility to promote dem- ocratic government wherever in the world it is lacking.”1 Does this sound like a Democratic pundit bashing Bush for par- tisan gain? Quite the contrary. The swipe came from Dimitri Simes, president of the Nixon Center and copublisher of National Interest. Simes is not alone in calling on the administration to reclaim the party’s pre-Reagan heritage—to abandon the moralistic, Wilsonian, neoconservative dream of exporting democracy and return to a more limited and realistic foreign policy that avoids the pitfalls of Iraq. 1. Dimitri K. Simes, “America’s Imperial Dilemma,” Foreign Affairs (Novem- ber/December 2003): 97, 100. Hoover Press : Berkowitz/Conservative hberkc ch5 Mp_106 rev1 page 106 106 jacob heilbrunn In fact, critics on the Left and Right are remarkably united in their assessment of the administration. Both believe a neoconservative cabal has hijacked the administration’s foreign policy and has now overplayed its hand.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Richard Perle Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
    Statement of Richard Perle Fellow, American Enterprise Institute Before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence February 2, 2005 Mr. Chairman, Thank you for including me in this, the first hearing of the Committee in the 109th Congress. You have asked me to comment on global threats to the U.S. national interest in the 21st Century. As a long time consumer of intelligence, and as a citizen often surprised by history’s U-turns and right angles, I hope you will allow me to narrow the focus of my remarks to relatively near-term threats to our interests where the quality of the intelligence available to our government is of particular importance. And then, if you will indulge me, I would like to say a word or two about the capacity of our intelligence organizations to deal with those threats. The principal threat to our national security is now centered on extremist organizations and individuals who wish to destroy our values and our nation. Today the core of this extremist threat is found among certain individuals and organizations who have appropriated, and march behind, a Muslim fundamentalist banner that proclaims a holy war against those who oppose their vision of a world dominated by them and their concept of Islamic law. The extremist threat we face is deeply ideological. In this it is much like the fascist and communist threats we have confronted in the past. But unlike Hitler’s divisions and the Soviet Union, the familiar instruments of military power, armies, strategic forces, deterrence, are inadequate—or sometimes even irrelevant—to the threat posed by suicidal fanatics who would not hesitate to use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to kill us in the largest numbers of which they are capable.
    [Show full text]
  • Review Essays 145
    Review Essays 145 Review Essays ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ American Choices in the ‘War on Terror’ Philip H. Gordon Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism and the American Empire Wesley K. Clark. New York: Public Affairs, 2003. An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror David Frum and Richard Perle. New York: Random House, 2003. The massive destruction and emotional trauma caused by the 11 September attacks on the United States, unprecedented in US history, made President George W. Bush’s declaration of war almost a political and psychological necessity. Almost immediately, Americans across the political spectrum accepted and internalised the notion that the United States was indeed at war. What remains contested is just who the United States is at war against. Is the enemy al-Qaeda, the organisation that planned and carried out the attacks? Is it the state sponsors and supporters of terrorist groups? Is it governments whose mistreatment of their own people create the climate in which terrorism breeds? Or is the United States fighting an even broader war against terrorism itself, the technique of warfare that on 11 September gave just a glimpse of its capacity to visit destruction on the American populace? The answers to these questions define the US strategy in the war on terrorism. In the frightening days after 11 September, the Bush administration answered them rapidly and forcefully. It began the war with an effort to find and punish those responsible for 11 September – al- Qaeda and its Taliban hosts in Afghanistan. But a second phase followed before the first had even finished.
    [Show full text]
  • BRINGING RADICAL CHANGE to the ARAB WORLD: the “DEMOCRATIZING” LEGACY of GEORGE W. BUSH Dan Tschirgi 1
    UNISCI Discussion Papers, Nº 12 (Octubre / October 2006) ISSN 1696-2206 BRINGING RADICAL CHANGE TO THE ARAB WORLD: THE “DEMOCRATIZING” LEGACY OF GEORGE W. BUSH Dan Tschirgi 1 American University in Cairo Abstract: In the wake of this summer’s war between Israel and Hizballah, it seems likely that the Bush Administration’s hopes for the Middle East have produced their antithesis. Far from becoming a showcase for the realization of one of the administration’s most prominently proclaimed values— democracy—the region is now threatened as never before by obscurantist Muslim forces. This article examines the rise of neoconservative forces in American policy-making circles, examining their ideological premises, their linking of Iraq to the requirements of Arab-Israeli peace in light of the Palestinian Refugee issue, and their confidence that historical or divine purpose upholds the use of American political power on the world stage. It concludes by questioning this position. Keywords: Israel, Hizballah, Middle East, United States, democratization. Resumen: Tras la guerra del pasado verano entre Israel y Hezbolá, parece probable que las esperanzas de la Administración Bush para Oriente Medio hayan producido su antitesis. Lejos de convertirse en un escaparate del logro de uno de los valores mas proclamados por la administración, la democracia, la región esta ahora mas amenazada que nunca por fuerzas musulmanas oscurantistas. Este articulo examina el auge de las fuerzas neoconservadoras en los círculos políticos estadounidenses, analizando sus premisas ideológicas, su vinculación de la guerra de Irak con los requerimientos de la paz árabe-israelí a la luz de la cuestión de los refugiados palestinos, y su confianza en que un propósito histórico o divino apoya el empleo del poder político estadounidense en la escena mundial.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel and the Iraq
    and a civilization. From the U.S. to West central neoconservative institution like the Berlin, the West was imperiled by Soviet and American Enterprise Institute, could draw Chinese Communism; in the Middle East, Is- upon the movement’s ideas, without it mat- rael was imperiled by the Arab states and by tering that he is not Jewish. Soviet designs on the region. With the Iraq War of 2003, neoconser- By the 1980s, neoconservatives had vatism ceased to be a descriptive term, be- changed; they were no longer based in New coming instead a word with international York and no longer concerned about “making resonance and a great, sometimes dangerous, it,” to borrow the title of Norman Podhoretz’s imprecision of usage. The neoconservatives 1967 autobiography. They had reoriented could be seen as a shadowy presence in the themselves toward Washington, the proper White House, and neoconservatism could be seat of American politics. Despite the promi- a code word for Jews in government, pulling nent Jewish figures who would emerge in the the levers of power and secretly serving Israel movement’s second generation — William by urging President Bush to attack Iraq. Kristol, David Brooks, and Paul Wolfowitz — Though the importance of non-Jews like Dick the Jewish element would diminish over time. Cheney in arguing for war should prevent any Catholic neoconservatives like John Neuhaus easy linkage of Jews, neoconservatism, and the and George Weigel were not less neoconserv- Iraq War, the power of conspiratorial thinking ative than their Jewish counterparts, and Jew- is very strong. This makes it all the more im- ish neoconservatives like David Brooks were portant to clarify the true relationship be- “Jewish” primarily by way of their attachment tween Jews and neoconservatism, which lies in to the intellectual legacy of the movement.
    [Show full text]
  • Neo-Conservatism and Foreign Policy
    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Master's Theses and Capstones Student Scholarship Fall 2009 Neo-conservatism and foreign policy Ted Boettner University of New Hampshire, Durham Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis Recommended Citation Boettner, Ted, "Neo-conservatism and foreign policy" (2009). Master's Theses and Capstones. 116. https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis/116 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses and Capstones by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Neo-Conservatism and Foreign Policy BY TED BOETTNER BS, West Virginia University, 2002 THESIS Submitted to the University of New Hampshire in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Political Science September, 2009 UMI Number: 1472051 INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI" UMI Microform 1472051 Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
    [Show full text]
  • Geoethics Ethical Challenges and Case Studies in Earth Sciences
    Geoethics Ethical Challenges and Case Studies in Earth Sciences Max Wyss International Centre for Earth Simulation, Geneva, Switzerland Silvia Peppoloni INGV – Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Rome, Italy; IAPG – International Association for Promoting Geoethics, Rome, Italy AMSTERDAM BOSTON HEIDELBERG LONDON NEW YORK OXFORD PARIS SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO SINGAPORE SYDNEY TOKYO Elsevier Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, The Netherlands The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, UK 225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451, USA Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions. This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein). Notices Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.
    [Show full text]
  • The Neoconservatives
    Durham Research Online Deposited in DRO: 02 June 2009 Version of attached le: Published Version Peer-review status of attached le: Peer-reviewed Citation for published item: Dumbrell, John (2008) 'The neoconservative roots of the war in Iraq.', in Intelligence and national security policymaking on Iraq : British and American perspectives. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 19-39. Further information on publisher's website: http://www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/catalogue/book.asp?id=2592 Publisher's copyright statement: Additional information: Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971 https://dro.dur.ac.uk 2 The neoconservative roots of the war in Iraq John Dumbrell The 2003 invasion of Iraq appeared, certainly on the surface of things, to exemplify and realize several of the fundamental tenets of neocon­ servative thought in the US. The Bush Doctrine of preemption, the ten­ dency toward unilateralism and working via "coalitions of the willing, h the willingness (e:ven eagerness) to use and sustain American military power, the artendant moral certainty, the notion of using Iraqi regime change as the starting motor of a democratizing engine for the entire Middle East: locating such ideas and commitments in the columns of neoconservative-leaning jouinals, newspapers, and think tank reports is an easy task.
    [Show full text]
  • Breaking the Silence: Truth and Lies in the War on Terror
    BreakingBreaking TheThe Silence: Silence: TruthTruth and and Lies Lies in in the the War War on on Terror Terror A Special Report by John Pilger September 11 2001 dominates almost “everything we watch, read, and hear. “We are fighting a war on terror,” say George Bush and Tony Blair, “a noble war against evil itself.” But what are the real aims of this war – and who are the most threaten- ing terrorists? Indeed, who is responsible for far greater acts of violence than those committed by the fanatics of al-Qaeda – crimes that have claimed many more lives than September 11, and always in poor, devastated, faraway places, from Latin America to South East Asia? ‘The answer to those questions are to be found in the United States, where those now in power speak openly of their con- quests and of endless war. Afghanistan . Iraq . these, they say, are just a beginning. Look out North Korea, Iran, even China. Breaking the Silence is about the rise, and rise, of rapacious imperial power, and a terrorism that never speaks its name, because it is “our” terrorism. John Pilger – Breaking The Silence Carlton 2003 ” 3 4 Afghanistan’sAfghanistan’s ‘New‘New EraEra ofof Hope’Hope’ It’s hard for us to understand in America, but fghanistan was the Bush administration’s “these (the Taliban) are people who attempted to first target in the war on terrorism. Its fate, control every mind and every soul in the country. A therefore, is a test case of the real nature of They . had a vast network of terrorist camps this war.
    [Show full text]