The essay is a summary on the American War on Terrorism following 9/11. Some see US policy after 9/11 as being driven by an ebullient arrogant stance of force rather than talk and by a hubris that came from their knocking down Saddam Hussein. McGregor (2011), however, concludes that "ten years after 9/11, the US is war-weary and introspective in a way it has not been for a generation." The federal budget has been depleted, and the country is insecure. Nonetheless, positive things have occurred as a result. The different government departments have been brought together, new ones have been constructed, and old ones reformed. And the country is watched over as it has never been before.
¶ … America's War on Terrorism since the attacks of September 11th, 2001.
America's war on Terrorism since 9/11 has largely been conducted in intensifying domestic security in all areas. The highlight has been capturing Osama bin Laden, followed by a phased extraction of the American Army out of Iraq. Nonetheless, security alert is on an all-time high and Defense receives a high proportion of fiscal allocation and focus.
government has also stepped up its surveillance system constructing a highly intricate and controversial eavesdropping data-system base that is run by the National Security Agency and contains trillions of e-mails, web searches and commercial transactions." (McGregor 2011)). A similar system, on as massive a scale, will almost be complete in San Antonio, Texas. Both of these systems support the NSA's headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland and house everything "from records of phone calls to and from Iran to credit card purchases by potential suspects at home" (ibid.).
The NSA has intensified its grip on surveillance and does this by closely magnifying each and every footstep of the enemy. According to James Bamford, cited by McGregor (2011), the NSA intends "to store data roughly equal to a septillion -- a 1 followed by 24 zeroes -- pages of text by 2015" (ibid.)
Spending for Defense security and intelligence projects has increased a thousand-fold following 9/11 despite America's recession. Public furor, too, resulted from revelations of government flaws in bureaucracy that prevented the various departments from sharing their information. This flaw resulted in vulnerability to the 9/11 attack. America learned its lesson and their intelligence establishment aimed to fix this huge flaw by bringing the various Departments closer to one another and encouraging them to mutually share information and assist one another.
The post-9/11 era intensified the desire for security at home modifying the military-intelligence establishment, reforming much that was flawed and corrupt, and, in many ways, creating a body that was hugely different to that which it had been before. The Central Intelligence Agency was one of the institutions that were created and America sharpened its assertiveness both at home and abroad. Another institution has been the Department of Homeland Security, formed from an amalgamation of 22 agencies, from customs to the coast guard. Security at U.S. airports and other transport nodes increased and America demanded the same level of vigilance abroad.
Spending for defense became one of America's largest -- if not its largest -- priority. William Hartung of the New America Foundation, a Washington-based think tank observed that:
The Pentagon budget rode on the coat-tails of 9/11. Pretty much whatever they asked for was given, because we were at war & #8230; In absolute terms, military spending is higher than it has been since world war two -- it is higher than during the Korean War. (McGregor 2011)
Barak Obama largely retained Bush's security implementations changing little whilst extending America's presence in Afghanistan before planning a phased withdrawal following the capture of Osama bin Laden. Allocation for Defense spending, too, has been mostly retained at its former high levels.
American efforts to intensify security seem to have been successful since no major terrorist attack has occurred in this nation since September 2011. One of the best results emanating from the attack was that national agencies, once performing in silo, have been compelled to come together and talk. The effort to staunch terrorism, too, has extended to all divisions, however peripheral they are to the issue of terrorism. Departments, such as those of Treasury and justice departments, now include divisions that discuss security and regularly meet together to share their findings and perspectives.
The American War on Terrorism has disgruntled some critics too who claim that the government debt has only exacerbated itself by irrational spending on defense and that money should, too, be distributed to other sectors. Worst of all is the fact that money kept on pouring into defense during one of America's harshest economic eras -- when recession as at an all-time low. David Rothkopf, an official in the administration of President Bill Clinton, and an expert on national security commented that: "The opportunity cost of retreating from reform efforts in the U.S. was doubly damaging… Not only have we focused on the wrong thing and gone about it the wrong way, our economy has become dramatically less competitive." (*)
The NSA has invested about $2b in its massive data storage center in Utah but this is minimal when compared to the $700bn that has been poured into defense over the past decade. And critics complain too over the waste that has been incorporated into the spending.
Another controversial aspect of the War has been extension of the Patriot Act which permits Federal Bureau of Investigation, spies, and police to gain access to private matters of the public. This includes power to arbitrarily investigate and to detain illegal immigrants. Some feel that the government is gaining too much power and that this can be dangerous. The most controversial provision was that which allowed the FBI to force business, medical practices and banks to hand over "tangible things" that are relevant to a security investigation. This clause stands into effect until 2015. Purportedly, conditions hedge this clause but the American Civil Liberties Union maintains that the broadness of the clause allows officials access to vast troves of data.
You’re 82% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.