Attacks on Pearl Harbor and the World

attacks on Pearl Harbor and the World Trade Center had similar historical events surrounding each attack. Franklin Delano Roosevelt and George W. Bush used similar policies to combat further attacks and unite the nation

The paper highlights the entwined American reactions to the September 11 attacks and the Pearl Harbor attacks. The paper illustrates the similarities in which the over-prevailing backgrounds of each event created reactions to the devastating measures that promptly gave escalation to the Wars that have been fought. The paper also looks at the integration of the memory of Pearl Harbor in American reactions to September 11 attacks. Subsequently, the paper reflects on the similarities in repercussions of the attacks on the Pearl Harbor, as well as, the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11.

It is quite apparent that the global society in which we live has become so much inter-connected that almost all events affect everyone regardless of the geographic location, nationality, culture or ethnicity. However, this consistent flow of capital, culture and merchandise from one corner of the world to another corner of the world has not stopped the meaning the September 11 to be projected in harshly nationalist terms. The reason for such an interpretation can be attributed to the observation of many Americans who see the September 11 attacks on America as a deliberate attempt to undermine the American values, who see Americans being the primary targets of these attacks. One should only take a look at the out-breaking of nationalistic reactions to the attacks of September 11 in the United States, characterized by the patriotic songs, flags, rituals, as well as, patriotic speeches, along with the military measures, pronouncing patriotism commonality and unity. However, the American patriotism evoked after September 11 recurrently makes reference to previous types of patriotism, particularly in reflections of attacks on Pearl Harbor in the Second World War, framed as the "good war."

Where, on one hand, the September 11 and Pearl Harbor attacks produced wide spread hatred and anger amongst the Americans, the September 11 and Pearl Harbor attacks also gave rise to patriotism. It will be obvious to anyone who has viewed American media coverage of 9/11 and the subsequent "war on terror" that these events have given rise to the American patriotism. This level of patriotism had been missing amongst the Americans ever since the attacks on the Pearl Harbor by the Japanese in the Second World War. For instance, states far off from the nerve centers of America have been demonstrating their patriotism in an unparallel manner. For example, the residents of the state of Hawaii consistently put up American flags along their houses; departmental stores have been selling pins, posters and flags; and people have been posting sport bumper labels on their cars declaring national honor, pride and solidarity. Almost all Americans have been concerned and involved after the September 11 attacks, whether picked up in this resurgent patriotism, or bothered by the concurrent growth of racial discrimination and unimpeded military and war policy.

Even though there are apparent differences between the attack on September 11 and the attack on Pearl Harbor in the Second World War, the similarities between the two attacks are quite predictable and unsurprising. This is because both these major events have been instances of a more universal global occurrence, which is the element of "surprise" in the attacks. Notwithstanding the fact that the time lag between these two events is in excess of fifty years, notwithstanding the fact that both these attacks concerned different performers with outstandingly different motivations, a prototype does exist in both of these events, particularly the "surprise" element as well as the consequences of the both these events. The paper initially highlights the similarities between the two attacks and then subsequently reveals the ways in which these similarities have been used by the Bush administration to re-ignite the American patriotism and produce feeling of solidarity and unity amongst the Americans.

Recalling the Attack on Pearl Harbor after the Attacks on September 11

For quite a long time historians, as well as, critics have drawn a certain amount of irregularity in the manner Americans and Japanese remember the Pacific War of the 1940's (2). On one hand, the Americans have consistently given extensive supplies to recalling the event of Pearl Harbor; they seldom give attention and reference to the atomic bombing to the two Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On the contrary, Japanese celebrate the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with a greater view on their Japan's national interest, since, Japanese have been in two minds about the war (10). While the formal hub of American remembrance of Pearl Harbor is situated on the public memorial and temple built over the submerged battleship USS Arizona, endeavors to prepare even a momentary display of the atomic bombings at the Smithsonian Institution in the year 1995 caused profound disagreements and termination of the display (35).

Within this particular backdrop, it should not be astonishing that Pearl Harbor swiftly turned out to be an orientation point for American analysis of September 11, and that Nagasaki and Hiroshima have been prominently not spoken about, in spite of the misappropriation of the expression "ground zero" to mention the location of demolition at the World Trade Center. Although the causes for contrasting September 11 to Pearl Harbor might give the impression to be quite understandable to Americans, the lack of indication to the atomic-attacks by America on Nagasaki and Hiroshima has also been prominent particularly when the sight of urban destruction close to the World Trade Center site is mentioned as "ground zero," an expression connected with the initial trial of the newly developed atomic bombs at Los Alamos throughout the Second World War. In addition to that, both these attacks comprised enormous civilian fatalities. These causalities would have been inconceivable before their occurrence (1).

The contrasts between the attack on Pearl Harbor and the attacks on September 11 have been challenged on the apparent basis that the attack on Pearl Harbor had been a military assault on a military mark. Critics who have challenged the contrasts assert that the attacks on September 11TH have been much worse than the attacks on Pearl Harbor. To them the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor had been a military assault against a military target (3).

Furthermore, famous critics like Noam Chomsky have also objected to the evaluation by asserting that the removal of American imperialism entailed orientations to the State of Hawaii as a territory of America. In an interview on the September 11, Chomsky asserted that for America, this is the first time in almost 200 years that the American territory has been either threatened or has actually come under foreign attack. To Chomsky, it has been a deceptive attempt by critics to compare the attack on Pearl Harbor with the attacks on September 11. He asserts that in the Second World War, military bases in two American colonies had been under attack and it was not an American terrain. The American territory had never been under threat. Hawaii had not been an American territory at that time; it was an American colony (5).

However, majority of the critics, with a few acceptations have been sketching contrasts that emphasize cultural, as well as, psychosomatic interpretations, along with imagery and sequence-of-events connections of these two proceedings (in preference to any type of all-inclusive historical explanation). America has always been in the fortunate situation of never observing the harsh influences of contemporary combat on its personal territory, However, both Pearl Harbor as well as, September 11 show up as assaults at home-territory that produced unexpected, enormous fatalities and led to a long-drawn-out conflict with the enemy. These resemblances have been more than enough to force contrasts from the first instant subsequent to the attacks on September 11 (4).

The American media started to consistently bring up the attacks on the Pearl Harbor while commenting on the attacks on September 11 immediately after the attacks had taken place (25). However, it had been completely natural for the Americans to contrast the two events on the grounds of the sheer level of casualty and demolition both these events had caused. Furthermore, at that early stage, media analysts, as well as, common American people had been unable to discover new ways to give some meaning to the attacks on September 11 (12).

Majority of the Americans observed that they had been at war, however, they had not been aware as to who the enemy was. Even referring to the attacks on September 11 and the wars fought as a result of the event extends the standard interpretations of "war" in which identified fighters confront each other on battlegrounds. In the aftermath of September 11, almost all the patriotic ceremonials of commemoration turned out to be significant junctures for symbolizing the September 11 attacks in the background of America's account of conflict. In these backgrounds, orientations to the attack on Pearl Harbor had turned out to be particularly valuable as emblematic connections amid the still imprecise and disputed "war against terrorism" and Second World War (13).

Indications leading to the Attacks

Even though the attacks on Pearl Harbor and the World Trade Center have been portrayed as completely unexpected and unforeseen actions, both these events had been directed by apparent signs and signals that the United States had been confronting a looming danger (36). Before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the relationship between the Americans and the Japanese had arrived at its lowest point (7). Not later than the summer of 1941, the government of the then American President, Franklin Roosevelt, had set economic sanctions on the Japanese government to compel them to stop their conflict with China. Historians have given reference to these sanctions as the contiguous reason of the Japanese attack on the Pearl Harbor. The Japanese government refused to get bowed down by these sanctions (22). While, the Japanese believed that the American impediment against them would eventually damage their prosperous economy, they viewed the demolition of the U.S. navy as part of their strategic planning which would give them some room to maneuver. The intentions of the Japanese was to promptly grab hold of the natural resources of the Far East, strengthen their recently subjugated lands, and subsequently arrive at some kind of negotiated agreement with America (17).

Initially there had been internal disagreements between the administration of President Roosevelt and the senior bureaucrats in the Capitol Hill (9). The administration of President Roosevelt acknowledged the treat that had emerged from Japan, even though the senior officials in the Capital Hill did not comprehend that Oahu was at risk until time had gone out. These people did not believe that the Japanese would dare wage a war with America since they lacked both the financial resources, as well as, the warfare capability to fight a long war with the Americans (18). However, as things turned out in the end, the analysis made by the administration of President Roosevelt had been far more accurate than the analysis made by senior officials at Washington. The attack by Japan on the American soil of Pearl Harbor removed the likelihood of U.S. compliance to the formation of a Japanese kingdom in the Pacific, as well as, the ultimate peace agreement Japan expected to accomplish (19).

However, the threats emerging prior to the assault on Pearl Harbor can be considered as quite vague when compared to the attacks on 9/11 (36). The circumstances that confronted America had been even more precise and definite, if not relatively as critical, before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11. Numerous investigations, as well as, commission reports explained the constant fight back aligned with terrorism. All these investigations and commission reports forecasted that a noteworthy terrorist attack on the American soil had become a practical sureness (5). It is believed that The American Administration, all through the 1990's, had been essentially occupied in a conflict with Al Qaeda, an international terrorist group. It is also believed that Al Qaeda might have been somehow connected to the terrorists that waged war against the American Ranger corps in Somalia in the year of 1993. It was also believed that Al Qaeda had also been occupied in the attack on the workplace of the project director for the "Saudi Arabian National Guard" situated in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, in the November of 1995, as well as, in the bombing of the Khobar Towers complex in Dahran in the July of 1996 (16).

The American troops abroad had been constantly under threat of terror attack and some of these attacks actually materialized into terror campaigns, as illustrated above. These terrorist campaigns against the interest of America in the year 1995 and 1996 transformed the mannerism in which the American troops had been deployed and also changed the operating tactics of the U.S. forces within the Arabian Neck of land (27).

Modern "force safeguard" set of laws had been propagated to defend personnel in the American military, compelling American Military commanding officers to monitor and analyze tough and inflexible obligations to guarantee the protection of all American troops deployed in the Arab States. In the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, American military corps had been strengthened at the Air Base of Prince Sultan and advice-giving and counseling constituents had been transferred to the Eskan Village. Eskan Village is a housing compound situated south of the Saudi capital, Riyadh (27).

In order to avoid any further terrorists attacks, all intelligence gathering and compiling endeavors also started directing its resources and focusing on this new intimidation, giving American Military forces, deployed all through the Arab World, with augmented strategic and procedural forewarnings. As a result, whenever the American forces felt an immediate terror threat, they used to relocate their forces at the "Threatcon Delta" so as to avert the probability of an instantaneous terror attack. These stringent measures adopted by the American Military in the Persian Gulf made it extremely difficult for Al Qaeda to attack American interests in the Gulf States; as a result, Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks started looking for vulnerable American targets in other places (27).

Furthermore, after the stringent measures had been adopted to protect the American forces in the Gulf States, several high officials, both in the military and the civilian sector, started believing that Al Qaeda, as well as, other terrorist networks did not have the capabilities to get past the security measures and strike a lethal blow to the American interests in the Gulf States (15). In August 1998, however, all these persistent reservations relating to the ever-increasing terrorization threats by Al Qaeda had been dismissed when Al Qaeda's bombed the American embassies in Kenya, as well as, Tanzania; and then in October 2000, attacked the U.S.S. Cole. In order to avert any further losses to its interest and put an end to this terror campaign, America, under President Clinton, subsequent to the 1998 embassy attacks, returned fire by initiating cruise missile attacks against alleged terrorist training base camps in Afghanistan, as well as, a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that was alleged to have associations to Al Qaeda (28).

The American government agencies, both military and civilian, had a patent concept that Osama bin Laden, along with the entire network of Al Qaeda, had dedicated themselves to attack and hurt American interests' worldwide. The fatwa (a religious decree) given by Osama Bin Laden, in the year 1998, symbolized a proclamation of combat against the Americans and urged all its followers to execute American soldiers, officials, even civilians the world over (28).

This consideration of the intentions of Osama bin Laden had been mirrored in different publicly accessible resources. On September 10, 2001, one day before the September 11 attacks, the American Congressional Research Service issued a persuasive caution about Osama bin Laden's operation of terrorism. The report had been titled as, "Terrorism: Near Eastern Groups and State Sponsors." Furthermore, a persuasive account of Osama bin Laden's coalition with the Taliban, as well as, his political ambitions had even been published in Foreign Affairs report in the year 1999 (28).

In light of the evidence given above, it is quite apparent that the element of "surprise" was not there, since, apparent signs and signals were present to gauge the ambitions of the enemy. Therefore, the attack on Pearl Harbor in the Second World War, as well as, the terrorist attacks on September 11 had not been events, which took place out of the blue (36).

However, since both these events had been commonly observed to have taken place devoid of any apparent warning, they both have been responsible for transforming postures and creating policies that have abridged the probability and results of surprise terror attacks (31). The attack on Pearl Harbor in the Second World War compelled the strategists to focus their undivided attention on the fundamental requirement to prevent the outcomes of unexpected attacks on the American soil, particularly when it came to the American nuclear deterrent coercions. The fright of an unexpected attack made the nuclear equilibrium of horror seem fragile. Consequently, massive endeavors had been assumed to assure that American strategic forces could endure a Soviet nuclear assault and still be competent to guarantee annihilation of the Soviet Union (8).

At present, the American President George Bush's administration has been attempting to reduce and diminish the realization of any possible terrorist event by augmenting homeland security and consequently the administration has been using more than U.S.$35 billion on homeland security plans annually, since the September 11 attacks. In addition, the American paramilitary forces have been preventing terrorist attacks by waging the war against the terrorists, as well as, by training foreign militaries to take care of the threat that has been ever emerging (8).

Institutional Weakness

Several incorrect perceptions prevail about the attack on Pearl Harbor. One such prevailing and widespread incorrect perception is that it was the American Navy that had been responsible for the protection and security of the Pearl Harbor. However, contrary to this prevailing observation, it was not the American Navy, but the American Army, that had been in charge for the safety and security of Pearl Harbor in the Second World War. Furthermore, it had been this separation of tasks that assisted in forming the circumstances for the unexpected attack on Pearl Harbor. As soon as Washington gave out a caution of war-attack to its military positioned in Hawaii, the Army officers undertook several measures to protect against damage, restricting ammunition, as well as, directing all its airplanes on the hub of airstrips so they might be more effortlessly protected (20).

On the contrary, American navy officials considered that the war-attack caution would bring about an energetic endeavor on the part of the Army to employ long-range airplanes to guard the waters in the region of Oahu. Whereas the American Army officers considered that American naval intelligence had been maintaining account on the location of the Japanese navy; they did not comprehend that the Navy intelligence-analysts had lost the trail of the Japanese aircraft-carters several weeks before the attack on Pearl Harbor took place. In addition to that, the Army, as well as, the Navy officials on Oahu never corroborated their views on the duties each one of them had been performing to protect and safeguard the country from foreign attacks (32).

However, historians assert that even if complete contact amid the Army and the Navy had taken place, it would not have been adequate to avert the tragedy for the reason that no procedure existed to gather and circulate all the intelligence information to the operational commanding officers who might have put it to effective utilization (11). Furthermore, there is very little proof to propose that the Japanese had prior knowledge on these institutional vulnerabilities in the defense of the state of Hawaii; however, institutional weaknesses eased their endeavors to seize the American Pearl Harbor fleet by surprise (35).

On the contrary, it is believed that Al Qaeda and its terror network may have been familiar with the institutional vulnerabilities that decreased the probability that its followers might have been noticed ahead of the September 11 attacks. At the same time as there was an amalgamated terror-prevention composition in the Gulf States to tackle the indigenous extremist threat emerging against the American forces located there, the institutional tasks in the American administration basically differed at the American borders. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as well as, the Department of Defense used to concentrate primarily on external terrorist threats and information/intelligence compilation and analysis, whereas the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) concentrated on domestic safety and scrutinizing domestic delinquency (23).

The American municipal, state, as well as, federal law enforcement agencies used to function with-in their particular sphere, defined by the American constitution, whereas the American airport security, before September 11 attacks and some time after that, had been chiefly the task of private companies. Furthermore, the characterization of the word "terrorism" had not been exclusive of institutional outcomes (23).

Debates on the subject of terrorism continued even before 9/11 had taken place. Debates about the kind of conflict or a kind of destructive force that would descend under the authority of the "Federal Emergency Management Agency" (FEMA) took place. Was it a home-based coercion concerning excessive ammunition, for instance, in the April of 1995, the obliteration of the Federal Building of Alfred P. Murrah; or a latest kind of terror-threat comprising "Weapons of Mass Destruction," for example, in the March of 1995, the attack on the Aum Shinrikyo Tokyo subway? Furthermore, as these discussions relating to the probability and structure of mass-fatality terrorism stretched out in the years before the attacks on September 11, vanguard government bureaus in the war on internal terrorism had been permitted to wither and weaken. After the September 11 attacks, the American Customs and Immigration representatives now discover themselves ill-equipped and unqualified for their fresh function in fighting internal terror campaigns (37).

The American people have a propensity for concentrating and focusing on tech-savvy and scientific explanations to the prevailing predicaments that exist in the American society. This perception has quite often led them to disregard that institutions transform the aptitude and capability to rise to up-and-coming powerful institutions. However, the aptitude and capability to coordinate and organize the endeavors of an enormous assortment of individuals, as well as, bureaucratic players, is extremely vital if the United States of America is to successfully utilize its capital in waging the "War on terrorism (37)."

In spite of inter-service contentions, as well as, bureaucratic partialities, the institutional vulnerabilities and limitations that had been existing before the attacks on Pearl Harbor had been comparatively trouble-free to diminish, when contrasted with the bureaucratic, as well as, lawful confrontations produced by the present war against terrorism. Subsequent to the attack on Pearl Harbor, patent and comprehensible lines of tasks and duties had been illustrated amid the various governmental services. On the contrary, legal and constitutional doubts, as well as, several jurisdictional concerns currently cause difficulties in official endeavors to produce the legislative compositions and interactions required to produce an all-inclusive reaction to terrorism (25).

The Use of Technology in the Attacks

Despite the fact that America has been the most technologically advanced nation in the world and despite the fact that the enemy had been backward on both occasions, the capability to make use of modern technology productively played an imperative function in both the attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor, as well as, the attacks by Al Qaeda terrorists on September 11 (25).

Every time, historians write about the technological unexpectedness, they center their attention on the surprise launch of ammunition hardware or artillery that cannot be swiftly handled by an adversary (25). The assault on Pearl Harbor, for instance, was made workable when the Japanese had grown an airborne torpedo that had the capability to work in the low waters of Pearl Harbor (14). Nevertheless, the accomplishment of Japan at Pearl Harbor in the Second World War had been achievable by an extensive amalgamation of expertise with a latest conception of maneuvers that produced the complete ability of aircraft-carter to endure in a crucial way (26).

This manifestation of expert military competence syndicated latest tools, strategy, and line of attack in an unpredictably distressing manner. Aircraft-carter itself had not been a surprise, however the Japanese Military subjugated this latest machinery with so much boldness and cleverness that it had not been viable even for those who recognized the danger created by Japan to acknowledge that they confronted such severe and instant threat (33).

Furthermore, Al Qaeda had also startled the American establishment by utilizing technology on September 11 (24). Once more, there had been nothing predominantly new about the utilization of aircraft to carry out a suicidal assignment -- "incongruously it had been the Japanese Military who had initiated the kamikaze at some stage in the October 1944 during the American incursion of the Philippines. However, by utilizing a horde of contemporary tools and machinery created by the information modernization and globalization, Al Qaeda workers had been able to prepare, coordinate, as well as, carry out a key "extraordinary maneuver" attack devoid of the hardware, schooling, or infrastructure usually connected with carrying out a meticulous hit at transnational scales (16).

Furthermore, Al Qaeda also utilized the Internet, satellite communication systems, as well as, cellular phones to organize their intercontinental maneuvers, particularly to converse with operators living and functioning in the United States before the attacks on September 11 (28). In addition, Al Qaeda also utilized the global banking procedures to finance groups in the United States devoid of attracting unnecessary interest (6). Al Qaeda workers traveled along the lines of the information development, exploiting global transmission, as well as, monetary systems to accomplish their wicked designs (16).

It is quite ironic to note that in the attacks on September 11, as well as, the attack on Pearl Harbor, the enemy employed the latest technology available in an extremely creative manner to instigate a dreadful and demeaning assault. Furthermore, before both these attacks took place, the tools and machinery utilized in these attacks had actually been fairly illustrious to the American officers and officials. This is especially true in the case of the attacks on September 11, where the American people, as the key receivers and promoters of globalization, had perhaps been the world's top authority when it came to tying together latest tools of transmissions and business (16).

In the end, it is quite apparent in the light of the above mentioned evidence that the Americans did not have an eager consciousness of the extreme anxiety and imagination of their enemies, showing them the way to undervalue and misjudge the motivation and keenness of their enemy to discover novel, to get around security checks, to achieve the aspect of shock and astonishment in their favor.

The interest-terror disparity

Throughout the preceding decade of the 1990s, the debate on the role and the function of the United States in global affairs circled about concerns on the interest-danger disparity. After the Cold War had finished, substandard, and somewhat troublesome terrorism, racial violence, threats, or simply unsteadiness and conflict -- " pervaded parts of the earth. Numerous reviewers had proposed that these global terror campaigns and conflicts had little influence on American interests. It was considered that those Americans who proposed that the American Military becomes occupied in conflicts like the one in Kosovo or even Rwanda, for example, had been actually feeling it with their hearts and not thinking with their heads (16).

The question had not been whether America ought to operate to bring genocide to an end. Rather, the issue had been that interference would signify an undefined American pledge to social persuasion that practically had little hope of accomplishment. Interference was an alternative open to the Americans, however, it had not been devoid of opportunity prices, as well as, considerable threats. Interfering in far-flung conflicts like that in Afghanistan simply to put an end to the Taliban civil rights exploitations or to disallow the terror network of Al Qaeda to operate on a safe foundation had never been taken into account. The current President George Bush operated his 2000 presidential campaign on cutting down the excessive military's global obligations overseas. The fatality-hatred factor in America gave the impression to be a significant issue in cutting down American interference to prevent racial violence, as well as, other types of massacre. Anti-market along with anti-democratic powers, particularly a backlash by radicals in opposition to the manner globalization spreads Western (specifically American) traditions, had not been considered adequate power to cause a momentous defense threat (16).

Throughout American history, there has been disparity between the interests of America and the threats it faced from the world outside. For example, in the late 1930's, the American intelligence agencies also alleged a disparity amid the American interests and the prestige of reacting to the dangers that had been materializing across the global sphere. However, this point-of-view has been complicated to clarify in retrospection, given the genocidal, as well as, violent strategies of the Nazi government and the colonial objectives of Japan. Before the attack on Pearl Harbor, on one hand, the German Nazis had conquered practically all of Europe, and on the other hand, Japan had been occupied in a conflict in China for almost 10 years. Nevertheless, the Americans gave the impression that they could, one way or another; keep away from the upsurge of repression and aggression that was encompassing the world (30).

The terror network of Al Qaeda, as well as, the colonial Japan, equally, assaulted the Americans in an attempt to restrict the American authority and to end the broadening of free marketplaces, democracy, as well as, laissez-faire thoughts into the East Asia and the Middle East. Japan thought that the American officials would not have the determination to confront their plans in Asia; Japanese leaders sensed that the American "fatality hatred" would produce a negotiated resolution in Asia. Whereas it appears that Osama Bin Laden anticipated a comparatively incompetent U.S. military reaction, once again obsessed by American apprehensions about collateral damage, that would eventually flicker a transformation in mediocre Arab establishments, if not a full-scale "clash of civilizations" amid Islam and the Western democracies. Osama Bin Laden and the Japanese, on the other hand, undervalued how surprise attacks would change the political equilibrium inside the American establishment and the manner in which the American people observed outside threats. Both of them had also been unsuccessful to distinguish how promptly American military could have been transported to stand up against them (30, 16).

The Aftermath of Pearl Harbor and September 11 attack

United States of America has turned out to be the sole super power in this ever-increasing global village. The power and unchecked authority it enjoys has been quite unparallel in the history of the human race. It is quite obvious that the choices and judgments made by American Presidents create a major influence on this global society. Eventually, it is time that turns out to be the best teacher on the decisions made by American Presidents whether they had benefited the country or not. Throughout the history of this great country, each and every president has confronted issues which have prompted them to make big decisions. This trend has not changed at all when it comes to the current American President. Throughout American history, all American Presidents have had to make quick decision on critical issues. The choices that these presidents have had to make have been extremely difficult particularly when America has been confronted with threat to its national security (5).

The attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor in the Second World War, as well as, the attacks by Al Qaeda on September 11 on the World Trade Center and Pentagon has been two events that have several similarities, and yet have several dissimilarities as well. The two American Presidents (President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Pearl Harbor attack, and President George W. Bush all through the Sept. 11 attacks) responded to their wearisome proceedings in identical, as well as, dissimilar manners. Following the tragic events, both presidents employed public rhetoric and propaganda so as to gather and unite the American people on one platform, the platform from where America went to war. By the successful triumph of Second World War, historic records have demonstrated that the policy President Roosevelt had assumed had been excellent for promoting the American interests. He gathered and united the Americans to assist the military and the government with the internal war by requesting each and every American-young or old, male or female, rich or poor-to play their part in that time of crisis, which greatly assisted in leading the Americans to success. After the September 11 attacks, the United States of America confronts an enormously unusual opponent. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon symbolized a new sort type of adversary, known as "Terrorist." Subsequent to the September 11 attacks, Bush gathered and united the American people employing propaganda with his action, behaviors, as well as, speeches. However, it would be fair to say that President Bush employed and used propaganda in a manner, which any other President would have used (12).

The expression "propaganda" might be exceedingly difficult to comprehend in the present context, however, the phrase has such an unconstructive implication on the mind of the American people that all presidents would not use this phrase, despite the fact that each and every political figure, whether American or non-American, uses propaganda to gather support for his campaign (12).

The classification of the phrase "propaganda" from the Oxford English Dictionary says, "The methodical diffusion of policy, report, or chosen information to broadcast or endorse a particular policy, belief, custom, etc." During the First World War in 1920's and the 1930's, the phrase "propaganda" had been used to such a degree that it had attained repulsive and unlikable implications, therefore, this phrase had not been employed when the Second World War started in the year 1939. The immoral constituent in propaganda is that it does not allow the complete truth to be demonstrated. Propaganda can be asserted as an effort to influence the people and to organize the actions of individuals in the direction of ends that are thought to be irrational or of cynical value in a culture at a specific time. More often than not, the people who propagate might acquire the results they wanted from the propaganda, whereas other times the propaganda fails to achieve the desired results. The success rate, as well as, the probability of its failure is unknown since scholars have ignored research on this subject. Therefore, in light of the above mentioned facts it is quite clear that propaganda has been difficult to classify, and that presently no apparent classification is bound to take place (12).

Furthermore, it is quite apparent from the speeches and public meetings that both President Bush and President Roosevelt employed the tactics of propaganda prior to and after the attacks that had taken place during their times of presidency. The American presidents at these times carried out their duties in almost identical manners, and acknowledged analogous reactions from the American people. However, it would be fair to say here that President Bush has taken several bold measures to protect America (12).

On the other hand, historians have asserted that the policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt had been influenced by the views of the American people (30). However, the opinions of the American people influenced President Franklin D. Roosevelt to a relatively small degree, since he had used propaganda, by hook or by crook, almost consistently (12). Before, as well as, after the United States entered the Second World War, President Franklin D. Roosevelt efficiently conveyed his messages to the American people with his public speeches, as well as, his hearth conversations. Prior to the entry of America in the Second World War, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had been attempting to stop America from going into this war, and just ahead of the United States entry into the Second World War, he had made efforts to gather cooperation and support from the American people for the war (12).

The question that comes to mind is when did President Franklin D. Roosevelt make the decision that the United States would participate in the Second World War? In his attempts to drive closer to the war President Franklin D. Roosevelt desired to raise the weapons impediment, which allowed countries from Europe, particularly Britain and France, to purchase armaments from America (35). Roosevelt encouraged this action on the grounds that by allowing Britain and France to purchase armaments from America it would prevent America from being a direct participatory in the Second World War, however, in reality, this move simply stimulated the United States more closer to the war. Several people argued this decision by asking that how this would not allow United States from participating directly in the war, if only France and Britain were to purchase armaments from America. By establishing his request on a return to international regulation and a longing to stay away from the war, President Roosevelt had been intentionally deceiving the American people (12).

As time passed by and major events had gone by, America moved closer to the Second World War. Germany Had taken over Poland and the Nazi party had become a genuine threat to the American values. President Roosevelt in his spectacular appeal to the United States people for their cooperation of a virtually predictable war declared that new world powers of demolition were extremely quick and lethal and asserted that no ancient defense was powerful enough that it would need no additional intensification and no assault was so improbable or unfeasible that it might be overlooked (17). Roosevelt employed his propaganda so as to gather more support and cooperation for an imminent war by prompting his addressees on his fireplace conversations and emphasizing several times about the issue of the women, children and old men -- who had been overcrowding the streets of France and Belgium -- "moving away from their dwellings to avoid bombs, fire and guns, moving away without food and shelter. President Roosevelt continued to use his propaganda to gather support to enter into the Second World War (22).