Military Operations Post 9/11

The 9/11 terror attacks is an act of terrorism that has had significant impacts on modern law enforcement and military operations. Etter (2015) contends that the 9/11 attack was a very traumatic event for the entire United States of America. This is primarily because the attack resulted in loss of lives and destruction of properties. 9/11 has been regarded as a terror attack that changed the face of global terrorism by highlighting the extent terrorists are willing to go to achieve their goals. In the initial response to the attack, law enforcement officers and other emergency or first responders lost their lives while others suffered severe injuries. Given the devastating and widespread impacts of the attack, numerous changes have been made in the operations, tactics, and mission of law enforcement agencies and military personnel in the United States. This paper examines the changes in operations for military personnel post 9/11 terror attacks. The discussion incorporates all levels of military operations i.e. operation, strategic, tactical, and operational.

Military Operations Pre and Post 9/11
Prior to the 9/11 terror attack, the military was minimally involved in the war on terrorism, which was primarily handled by law enforcement agencies and personnel. According to Thrall & Goepner (2017), the U.S. government considered domestic terrorism as an issue for law enforcement and global terrorism as a distant threat prior to the 9/11 attacks. During the period, the U.S. foreign policy focused minimally on the issue of terrorism, particularly international terrorism that was basically viewed as a distant threat. Even in cases where American foreign policy focused on combatting terrorism, the efforts were quite limited.
The view of domestic terrorism as an issue for law enforcement and consideration of global terrorism as a distant security issue implied that the military was hardly involved in the fight against terror. Military operations against terrorist groups and organizations were rare and limited. In addition, there was no counterterrorism strategy that provided the premise for the extreme involvement of the military in the fight against terrorism. The involvement of military personnel in terrorism pre 9/11 was limited to combat operations.
However, military involvement in the war on terrorism changed following the events during and after the 9/11 attacks. The attack forced the Bush Administration to radically revamp the nation’s approach to terrorism (Thrall & Goepner, 2017). In the aftermath of the attack, terrorism took center stage in U.S. national security policy, which changed the involvement of law enforcement and the military in the fight against terrorism. The limited-response approach that characterized the fight against terrorism prior to the 9/11 approach was changed in favor of a more aggressive and expansive strategy. As part of the new strategy, the Bush Administration established a 4-D strategy that focused on preventing terror attacks against the nation. This 4-D approach was established as part of homeland security strategies and actions. In this regard, the mission of the new strategy was to defeat terrorist organizations with an international reach, deny them operational environment, disrupt and/or limit factors that contribute to rise of terrorism, and defend the American homeland (Thrall & Goepner, 2017). This 4-D strategy became the premise for enhancing the involvement of the military in the fight against terrorism.
Changes in Operations for Military Personnel Post 9/11
Direct military intervention has been the most important component of the global fight against terrorism since the 9/11 terror attacks. Following this attack, the Bush Administration and other multinational partners made the decision to confront terrorism with direct military force. Direct military force was adopted as a suitable measure for combatting terrorism in comparison to the conventional law enforcement framework, which did not help prevent the 9/11 attack. Since then, military force has significantly influenced the fight against terror and its subsequent outcomes. Military intervention is defined as the intentional act of a country or a group of countries to introduce military force into the course of an ongoing controversy (Thrall & Goepner, 2017). In this regard, military intervention in the fight against terrorism is divided into two categories i.e. direct military and indirect military intervention. Direct military intervention entails sending troops to an enemy’s territory to occupy, fight or defend the territory through land, air or sea operations. On the contrary, indirect military intervention entails providing different types of support to promote the use of military force by a third party i.e. an ally or partner. Some of these kinds of support include military equipment, financial support, intelligence, training, and advising.
Given the adoption of military intervention in the fight against terrorism, there have been changes in operations for military personnel post 9/11 attacks. These changes have occurred at all levels i.e. strategic, tactical, operation, and operational levels as follows…
Strategic Changes in Operations for Military Personnel Post 9/11 Attacks
Zoli & Armstrong (2010) state that one of the strategic changes in operations for military personnel in the aftermath of 9/11 terror attacks is the adoption of a new strategic orientation. Since the 9/11 attacks, military theorists and personnel have shifted to a new strategic orientation, which is based on the belief that the military must not only achieve its victories, but also establish peace in post-conflict settings. The new strategic orientation is adopted as part of a comprehensive approach to stability operations that incorporates collaboration between military forces, humanitarian organizations, international partners, and the private sector. The change in approach is fueled by changes in the security environment through which the military role in the fight against terrorism cannot be addressed by any other agency.
Military personnel are not only mandated with the task of achieving victory over the enemy, but ensuring peace in established in the post-conflict setting or environment. Therefore, from a strategic perspective, the role of military personnel post 9/11 attacks entail engagement in post-conflict reconstruction. Military personnel engage in post-conflict reconstruction on the premise that security objectives are intertwined with multi-pronged stability and reconstruction missions or objectives. Secondly, the adoption of establishing peace in post-conflict settings is attributable to the fact that combat generates humanitarian and national and international security concerns, which are addressed through establishing peace. Without ensuring peace in such settings, new kinds of networks and actors emerge and generate numerous national and international security concerns (Zoli & Armstrong, 2010). Therefore, by focusing on establishing peace in the post-conflict setting, military personnel help prevent the emergence of such actors and networks.
As part of measures to establish post-conflict peace, military personnel engage in post-conflict capacity building in different sectors of governance, civil and justice institutions, and economic progress. During this process, military personnel work with local governmental agencies and international partners. Since post-conflict capacity building is intertwined with peace, its considered a critical pre-requisite for success of military operations in the fight against terrorism.
Thrall & Goepner (2017) states that the strategic change in the operations for military personnel post 9/11 attacks has entailed the focus on preventing and thwarting terror attacks. As a result, the goal of military intervention in the fight against terrorism is killing terrorists, destroying their networks and organizations, and eradicating their ability to conduct terror operations and attacks. Military personnel have adopted a more aggressive and expansive strategy in the fight against terrorism on the premise that America can no longer wait until a threat is fully developed and conducted. This implies that military personnel have adopted a more proactive approach in their operations rather than a reactive one, which has characterized conventional law enforcement agencies prior to 9/11 attacks. Through the proactive strategy and approach, military personnel have started to carry out preemptive attacks against perceived terror organizations and groups using force. In light of the strategy developed by the Bush Administration, military intervention in the fight against terror has taken an offensive and aggressive path as military personnel seek to destroy and defeat terrorist organizations overseas.
Operational Changes for Military Personnel Post 9/11 Attacks
In addition to strategic changes, operational changes have also taken place for military personnel in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks. One of these operational changes is the merger between the military and the police in the war on terror. As evident in the example of interchangeable military operations and police work in Afghanistan, the military and police have merged in the fight against terror (Bell, 2018). Partnerships between the police and the military have emerged as critical operational measures in fighting terror, particularly domestic terrorism. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, military personnel have continued to work with the police to help identify and kill terrorists within and outside the United States. For instance, Marine Corps established the Combat Hunter Program whose main goal is to prevent extreme violence and terrorism prior to its occurrence. This program incorporates combat profiling, which enlists the support and work of law enforcement agencies and personnel. Similarly, the police established Broken Windows program, which is a neighborhood crime prevention concept that help in predicting and dealing with terror and other forms of crime before they occur (Bell, 2018).
The other operational change for military personnel in the aftermath of 9/11 attacks is the increased use of military force in targeting terror organizations and groups overseas. Following these attacks, the United States government and its coalition forces developed a joint strategy for eliminating Al-Qaeda and the supporting Taliban regime in Afghanistan (Abbasi, Khatwani & Hussain, 2018). Al-Qaeda and the supportive Taliban regime in this country were identified as the masterminds of the 9/11 attacks. The allied forces launched a war against this terror group and the Taliban regime as part of the global fight against terror. The war against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime became the premise for further military operations conducted by the United States and coalition partners in different parts in the war on terror.
Green (2017) states that military personnel have increasingly been involved in operations that focus on fighting terrorism post 9/11 attacks. There have been ongoing wars in the Middle East by U.S. military forces and personnel to help in fighting global terror. After the 9/11 attacks, U.S. military personnel invaded Afghanistan within a month to fight Al-Qaeda and Taliban regime. In March 2003, America invaded Iraq and killed President Saddam Hussein for his alleged production of weapons of mass destruction and support for terrorism. America’s military involvement in Afghanistan continues to date as military personnel focus on halting the ongoing Taliban insurgency in the region. While formal American combat operations in Afghanistan ended in 2014, military personnel still conduct operations to help prevent emergence of new terror actors and networks in the region. These operations are also geared toward establishment of post-conflict peace and capacity building.
Military operations in different parts of the world, particularly the Middle East have characterized U.S. foreign policy in recent years following the 9/11 attacks. U.S. military personnel have increased their presence in the Middle East as they conduct numerous operations that are geared toward fighting terrorism. The increased presence of U.S. military personnel in the Middle East is based on the need to establish post-conflict peace and capacity building as well as fight any emerging insurgency and terror networks/organizations (Smith & Zeigler, 2017). Zenko (2018) contends that U.S. military presence in the Middle East region is based on a common bargain in which Middle East governments as provided security cooperation and military help by U.S. military personnel in exchange for access to the region’s military bases. Therefore, American military presence in Middle East is not only physical in relation to deployment of troops, but also in the form of security cooperation programs. This implies that military personnel have been required to engage in operations that go beyond fighting terrorists to collaborating with Middle East governments in establishing peace and capacity building.
Tactical Changes for Military Personnel Post 9/11
Strategic and operational changes for military personnel in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks have also resulted in tactical changes. One of the tactical changes for military personnel is the adoption of new era of war-fighting techniques (Scarborough, 2011). Prior to the 9/11 attacks, tactics employed by military personnel involved the use of heavy armor and big bombers. Since the attacks, tactical approaches adopted by military personnel entail intelligence collection, commando strikes, and manhunt. While heavy armor and big bombers are still utilized, the new techniques are considered more effective in realization of the desired military goals and objectives. These new techniques and tactical approaches have been adopted due to changes in the combat environment. Unlike pre 9/11 attacks, adversaries no longer wear uniforms, adhere to the rules of war or march in certain formations. Terrorists are currently using suicide bombs, beheadings and ambushes, and roadside explosive to carry out attacks. Consequently, military personnel have been forced to adopt new tactical approaches and fighting techniques/equipment to fight terrorists.
As part of adopting new era fighting techniques, military personnel are currently deployed a lot unlike pre 9/11 period. In essence, the U.S. military has become a more expeditionary force, which is a reflection of tactical changes for military personnel post 9/11. The increased deployment of military personnel has been characterized by setting up bases in insurgent territories to carry out strikes and protect civilians. This is based on the notion that counterinsurgents are effective when they operate among the people and within insurgent territories rather than being stationed elsewhere. Kaplan (2011) states that top generals are increasingly involved in combat operations within insurgent territories and earn extra accolades for acting as ground commanders in the fight against terror.
The other tactical change for military personnel post 9/11 is how troops move on the battlefield. This is primarily because current military operations are fought in a more flexible and imaginary manner in comparison to the pre 9/11 terror attacks (Kaplan, 2011). Military personnel are increasingly involved in special operations and continue to capitalize on improved intelligence gathering to carry out their operations. Therefore, current tactics by military personnel have evolved and incorporate use of high-tech sensors and communication networks.
In conclusion, the 9/11 terror attacks have had significant impacts on the history of the United States in relation to security. These attacks have contributed to numerous changes for military personnel in the fight against terrorism. The changes for military personnel post 9/11 have occurred at the operational, tactical, and strategic levels. 9/11 attacks have primarily contributed to the increased involvement of military personnel in combat operations and wars that seek to prevent and thwart domestic and international terrorism. Additionally, military personnel focus on establishing peace in post-conflict situations and post-conflict capacity building across their operations.
References
Abbasi, I.A., Khatwani, M.K. & Hussain, M. (2018). An Overview of Major Military Operations in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan. Journal of Academic and Social Research, 1(1), 1-14.
Bell, A. (2018, July 4). In the Post-9/11 World, Military and Police Merge in the Fight Against Terror. Retrieved March 2, 2019, from https://www.policeone.com/terrorism/articles/477251006-In-the-post-9-11-world-military-and-police-merge-in-the-fight-against-terror/
Etter, G.W. (2015). Changes in Local Law Enforcement Brought About by 9/11. in (ed.) Terrorism and Counterterrorism (Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance, Volume 20). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.219-240.
Green, M. (2017, September 8). How 9/11 Changed America: Four Major Lasting Impacts (with Lesson Plan). Retrieved March 2, 2019, from https://www.kqed.org/lowdown/14066/13-years-later-four-major-lasting-impacts-of-911
Kaplan, F. (2011, September 1). The Post-9/11 Military. Retrieved March 2, 2019, from https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2011/09/the-post-9-11-military-our-soldiers-and-generals-have-adapted-well-in-the-past-decade-here-s-how-they-did-it.html
Scarborough, R. (2011, September 8). 9/11 Changed War-fighting. The Washington Times. Retrieved March 2, 2019, from https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/8/911-changed-war-fighting/
Smith, M. & Ziegler, S.M. (2017, November 10). Terrorism Before and After 9/11 – A More Dangerous World? Research & Politics, 4(4). Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053168017739757
Thrall, A.T. & Goepner, E. (2017, June 26). Step Back: Lessons for U.S. Foreign Policy from the Failed War on Terror. Retrieved March 2, 2019, from https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/step-back-lessons-us-foreign-policy-failed-war-terror#full
Zenko, M. (2018, October). U.S. Military Policy in the Middle East – An Appraisal. Retrieved March 1, 2019, from https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/2018-10-18-us-military-policy-middle-east-zenko.pdf
Zoli, C. & Armstrong, N.J. (2010). How U.S. Army Doctrine in Shaping National Security Strategy. PRISM, 2(1), 101-121.