Secure After 911? Is the United States

¶ … Secure After 911?

Is the United States more secure or less secure following the attacks of September 11, 2001? The position of this paper is that the U.S. is in fact more secure. Even after the bombing at the Boston Marathon in April, 2013 -- an example of a domestic terrorist event -- it can be said that America is more secure than it was prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Why is the U.S. more secure now?

Firstly, there have been changes made in a number of aspects of life in the United States. A peer-reviewed article in the journal Middle East Quarterly points to several changes that are clearly intended to make the country more secure. The main government buildings in the nation's capital are now surrounded by "…ugly concrete blocks," and the street in front of the White House -- Pennsylvania Avenue -- is now closed to traffic (Zakheim, 2011). Airline passengers willingly remove their shoes, belts and jewelry and they fully expect that their bags will be searched for possible explosive devices or weapons.

These security checks on Americans are part of everyday life and according to Zakheim, Americans take these routine security checks "in stride" (p. 1). Football fans attending NFL games are searched for potential weapons as they enter stadiums and the same scrutiny is conducted in other sports venues.

In addition, the U.S. government created the "Homeland Security" agency and the "Office of the Director of National Intelligence" to help coordinate activities and findings between the military, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, which hopefully prevent a breakdown in communication links. It is well-known that if the FBI agent in Minnesota had made it known to the authorities in Washington that a wealthy Muslim man was taking flying lessons but did not want to learn how to land, perhaps the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, could have been prevented.

Also, according to the peer-reviewed journal, The Washington Quarterly, the U.S. has "…relentlessly hunted terrorists around the world" (Boyd, et al., 2009). The U.S. has also managed to destroy some terrorist training facilities and the U.S. has interfered with funding sources for al Qaeda; along with those strategies President Barack Obama has used high-tech drones to kill suspected al Qaeda leaders.

Example #1 -- Obama authorized the killing of al Qaeda leader bin Laden

Osama bin Laden, the al Qaeda leader and the brains behind many attacks against the United States -- including murderous attacks against American embassies in Africa and the hijacking of commercial airliners on September 11, 2001 -- was killed in Pakistan in May, 2011. The bin Laden assassination was based on Obama's authorization to the Navy SEALS to use a risky night-time raid into Pakistan. Many believe that killing bin Laden makes the U.S. safer because -- while there is some debate as to how much authority bin Laden had within the al Qaeda organization at the time of his death -- bin Laden was an iconic, bright, wealthy and creative terrorist planner, and may have been putting together new plans for attacks against the U.S.

Example #2 -- Obama has gone on the offensive against terrorists everywhere

Through the use of high-tech unmanned drones, the Obama Administration has killed a number of key al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, Sudan and in Yemen as well. Clearly the use of drones to kill suspected enemies is controversial and is being criticized widely because along with suspected terrorist leaders innocent civilians are also among the casualties when a drone strike is launched. That having been said, in April, 2013, two U.S. drone strikes in Yemen (a hotbed for terrorist activities) killed "…at least five suspected militants and destroyed the house of one of them in a mountainous area" near Sanaa, Yemen (CBS News). One of those killed in Yemen in April, 2013, was Hamed Radman, suspected of recruiting radical Muslims for terrorist attacks and suicide bombings (CBS News).