This paper examines whether the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks fundamentally and permanently altered American foreign policy, or whether post-9/11 shifts reflect longstanding patterns of U.S. diplomatic and military behavior. The paper reviews historical context for the War on Terror, including Cold War preemptive strategy, U.S. involvement in Vietnam as an insurgency, and the doctrine of Manifest Destiny. It analyzes the four key principles of the Bush Doctrine — counterterrorism warfare, preemptive strikes, unilateral action, and democratic regime change — and argues that while these represented a notable shift in tone and international cooperation, they did not depart fundamentally from the flexible, historically documented character of American foreign policy.
Over its history, American foreign policy has proven remarkably flexible. Indeed, critics have said it has been too flexible — too naïve, too calculating, too openhanded, too violent, too isolationist, too unilateral, too multilateral, too moralistic, too immoral (Mead, 2002). All of these criticisms have been true of U.S. foreign policy at certain points, but its flexibility has made it possible for the nation to grow and thrive in a swiftly changing world. It is often said that the events of September 11, 2001 changed the world. The scale and source of the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil were certainly different from those experienced by any other nation before that time. However, assertions that 9/11 changed U.S. foreign policy permanently are, I believe, based on a shortsighted view of national orientations towards guerrilla warfare, preventive attacks, and alliance-building. Below, I discuss the historical context of the War on Terror that proceeded from the events of 9/11, and previous historical moments from which U.S. policymakers drew wisdom in forging foreign policy that fit America in the first years of the 21st century.
Prior to 9/11, U.S. foreign policy on preemptive strike warfare extended only to nations that provided a clear and present danger to U.S. interests at home or abroad. For example, U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War was justified on the basis that expanding Communist influences in Southeast Asia would dramatically restrict trade and international cooperation with America and its allies, and would stir up unrest in otherwise peaceful nations. This war provides some historical context and precedent for U.S. involvement in what is essentially an insurgent struggle. The difference between Vietnam and U.S. involvement in Afghanistan is that the insurgency concerned is not struggling for nationhood, but for ideological dominance above and beyond nationhood (Barber, 1992). However, parallels between Cold War communism and terror-era Islamic extremism remain salient for students of foreign policy.
Previous terrorist attacks on American soil are less relevant to policy changes since 9/11 than previous American involvement in nontraditional warfare or unilateral international action. This is because most previous terrorism on American soil has originated from U.S. citizens themselves — for example, the Oklahoma City bombing. Prior attacks by Islamic extremists on the World Trade Center in 1993 did not significantly alter U.S. policy towards foreign nations, but mainly altered internal security measures and stepped up FBI surveillance of Islamic extremist groups. The only other comparable event in recent history is the 1975 bombing of the Fraunces Tavern carried out by a Puerto Rican nationalist group, which also prompted closer FBI surveillance of relevant extremist organizations and altered public safety measures.
"Bush Doctrine principles traced to Cold War and Manifest Destiny"
Although American foreign policy swung wildly during the turn of the millennium, it has not changed substantially from its essential character as a diverse, flexible — not to say schizophrenic — point of view. The fact that the democratically elected administration of the U.S. can so greatly alter foreign policy in such a short time is both a strength and a weakness of the American project. The events of September 11, 2001 merely brought home once again a felt need to protect our interests unilaterally, and to let wariness of potential threats guide our military spending and action.
You’re 62% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.