National Character vs. Realism in Post-9/11 U.S. Foreign Policy

Introduction: How 9/11 Reshaped the American Identity

September 11, 2001 changed everything. We hear sentiments like this one often — but what do they really mean? Other than the obvious consequences, such as stricter security at airports and increased demand for Middle East experts, what truly changed? Are Americans fundamentally different people than we were on September 10? Perhaps as a nation our priorities shifted, but has our national character itself been altered? The 9/11 Commission Report emphasizes national unity: "Remember how we all felt on September 11 — not only the unspeakable horror but how we came together as a nation, one nation. Unity of purpose and unity of effort are how we will defeat this enemy" (National Commission 2004, executive summary 34).

The raw immediacy of the September 11 attacks inspires a kind of amnesia regarding other national security crises: the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Vietnam War, the Cuban Missile Crisis. America has never been without military involvement in the world, at least not since World War II required that U.S. troops help stabilize regions like Germany, and since the Cold War necessitated involvement in conflicts worldwide — from South America to Southeast Asia. Yet September 11 was the first time many Americans had to confront the reality of an attack on U.S. territory. Most of the population is not even old enough to remember the Cuban Missile Crisis of the early 1960s, much less the attack on Pearl Harbor decades before.

Historical Precedents for National Unity in Crisis

During times of crisis or direct threat, as the post-September 11 period has demonstrated, Americans come together around the common goal of defeating an enemy. After Pearl Harbor, Americans united in support of joining the Allied powers in World War II. The Cold War brought its own defining enemy — the Soviet Union — which enabled the American people to rally around the cause of defeating communism. This conflict also produced the national unity that followed the Cuban Missile Crisis. In short, whenever the United States is directly threatened, the American people unite behind their perception of the enemy and their desire to protect the nation and its defining values.

During World War II, this meant collective unity against Japan and Germany. During the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis, it meant uniting against communism and anti-capitalism. In today's society, it means unity against terrorism. The pattern is consistent: crisis generates solidarity, and solidarity generates political will.

National Character as a Foreign Policy Framework

Uniting a nation around a defining event is a powerful incentive for people to become motivated by emotion rather than facts. Hook and Spanier explore this dynamic in their examination of the abundance of televised images that inspire an immediate, gut reaction — either in favor of a cause, such as images of newly liberated Iraqis celebrating their freedom, or against it, such as graphic pictures of war atrocities in Sudan (Hook and Spanier 2004). This emotional response, so similar to the one that united the United States after the images of September 11 were broadcast worldwide, can be an effective method for inspiring a public sense of purpose and giving meaning to otherwise confusing conflicts.

The creation of a "national character" — currently centered on the export of democracy and the protection of American lives and values — can help citizens solidly support their government's decisions. This phenomenon is not new. It was clearly evident during the Cold War, when the idea of communism as inherently evil, and of capitalism and democracy as the only true paths to freedom, inspired Americans to unite against the Soviet threat. The spread of communism was considered sufficient justification for American intervention in wars like Vietnam. Although that conflict eventually split the nation bitterly, U.S. involvement was initially rooted in the perceived need to resist a common enemy. This same logic of intervention whenever communism appeared to gain strength was extended to Latin America during the Cold War era — threats to America's national character, in this view, must be fought at any price (Hook and Spanier 2004).

As a theory, national character arguments rest heavily on moralistic claims — that the American way of life is superior to other political systems. It "equate[s] the country's national values — individual liberty, religious tolerance, human rights — with universal values" (Hook and Spanier 2004, p. 353). This concept is evident throughout the language of the 9/11 Commission Report, which devotes an entire chapter (Chapter 13) to "unity" in its various forms: "unity of effort across the foreign-domestic divide, unity of effort in the intelligence community, unity of effort in sharing information, unity of effort in the Congress" (National Commission, 399–428). This emphasis on unity recalls past instances of defending the national character and implicitly associates the struggle against terrorism with prior moments of national solidarity — the Cold War and Pearl Harbor among them.

Conclusion: Realism Over Unity as a Defense Against Terrorism

A realistic foreign policy perspective, as opposed to one that treats the national character of America as an exportable commodity, is what will best prevent attacks on American soil and allow the nation to flourish in the international community. Admittedly, it may not inspire the kind of "unity" called for in the 9/11 Commission Report. But what a realistic foreign policy will do is protect those same people from anti-American attacks — and that protection is ultimately a more durable foundation for national security than emotional solidarity alone.

Bibliography

Spanier, John, and Steven Hook. American Foreign Policy Since World War II. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2004.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. The 9/11 Commission Report. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2004.