Post 9 11 Foriegn policies

9/11 Policies

In the wake of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, there were many changes in U.S. domestic and foreign policy. The attacks highlighted the risks posed to Americans both at home and abroad. The Bush government enacted several policies in response to the attacks. Domestically, two stand out as the most significant. The first was the Homeland Security Act of 2002. This act created the Department of Homeland Security, which took a substantial amount of responsibility -- but not total responsibility -- for safeguarding the nation. The DHS began working with other agencies to strengthen border security in particular, and to coordinate anti-terrorism efforts. The department's presence is especially felt in terms of transportation safety, and the myriad new rules and restrictions that govern air travel.

The other significant law that was passed in response to the terrorist attacks was the Patriot Act, which was passed very quickly after the attacks. The Patriot Act expanded Presidential authority with respect to combatting terrorism, expanded allowable surveillance, set up an anti-money laundering program to cut off finances earmarked for terrorists and in general removed legal obstacles to fighting terrorism. The Patriot Act has in particular had sweeping consequences. It was renewed in 2011 by President Obama. The Act has been criticized for its expansion of Presidential authority, its provisions on immigrants and for the expansion of surveillance in particular.

These acts are still in force, and since they were put into place have been expanded. The role of Homeland Security in particular has expanded since that department was created. So it is reasonable to argue that these acts have fared well, and many of their provisions are likely to be maintained. In terms of terrorism, there have not been major terrorism acts on U.S. soil since 2001, but it would be logical fallacy to credit these acts with that, as there might not have been any serious attempts. Still, fewer terrorist attacks will heighten the sense of security that American feel and these acts were passed in part to restore that sense of security.

There has always been the question as to whether or not the tradeoff with respect to civil liberties is worth the greater security. The answer does not depend on whether or not there have been any terrorist attacks, or even if any have been thwarted, since on an individual level it is highly unlikely that any one American will be affected. But civil liberties affect us all, and in a sense there are definitely elements of these acts that are not worth the security. I am not among those who objects to heightened security at airports, but there is good cause to be skeptical of heightened surveillance powers and the overall lack of transparency in the way that these new powers are implemented. The American citizen is protected by the Constitution, and in particular the Fourth Amendment and I agree with the critics who feel that element of the Patriot Act violate the Fourth Amendment (Cornell Law School, 2014). I fear that an erosion of our Fourth Amendment rights is not worth it, particularly given the low risk that terrorism genuinely poses.

On the international front, the terrorist attacks signaled the era of the Bush doctrine, which is an umbrella term to describe "various related foreign policy principles of President George W. Bush" (CRF, 2014). The Bush doctrine includes ideas such as pre-emptive strike in self-defense, which was part of the rationale for invading Iraq. The Doctrine also holds that America should act alone if need be and that the U.S. should remain the world's sole superpower. The Bush doctrine had consequences, however, in particular relating to how it was used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

The Obama Doctrine is based on the same idea that a President's foreign policy philosophy constitute a doctrine. There is actually a lot of debate about whether or not an Obama Doctrine exists (Drezner, 2011). What it is and whether it is good has a lot to do with where one stands on the political spectrum. While it is sometimes argued that Obama has no grand strategy, it probably exists and looks more like neoliberalism than the Bush doctrine, wherein Obama seeks to build coalitions, and sometimes to let other nations take the lead in a conflict instead of going solo to asset its role as the world's only superpower. There is still an underlying belief in the power of the U.S. In the world, but there are definite differences in terms of implementation.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have not produced the results that the U.S. wanted. Afghanistan was about al-Qaeda, and while there were some successes, the Taliban still exists, al-Qaeda still exists and more importantly terrorists have learned to be leaner and nimbler rather than using the al-Qaeda model of hiding in the mountains and engaging the U.S. there. There are more terrorists now than there were back then.