Compare and contrast the pre and post 9/11 response to terrorism.

This essay examined and analyzed the impact of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on US international relations, as well as the dissonances they created in the international economy. As a result, this essay explores the repercussions of acts of terrorism from the perspective of the international relations, analyzes US responses in the immediate aftermath of events, and places terrorist attacks in the framework of globalist agenda, investigates how they engage with the global economy, as well as the ramifications of such events and actions for US foreign policy.

  1. Introduction:
    The incidents of September 11, 2001 were and continue to be portrayed as a bursting in the global community, or at the very least as a new variant on the world political ideology, the sole determiner of a new agreement between the United States and the global economic system, which is heavily controlled by that same country. The inability of the CIA to see the warning indicators of the 9/11 terrorist attacks became one of the most contentious problems in intel history. There were inquiries, studies, and internal inquiries, among other things.
    A basic and initial examination of the issues surrounding 9/11 and its place in American and international politics would reveal that, like any other past phenomena, it contains both destruction and consistency. The world has not changed since September 11, but the geopolitical agenda has, thanks to the manifestation of the will to fight terrorism, not because of the perpetrators themselves as because of the manifestation of the will to fight terrorism.
    The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001, as well as the hijacking of a plane that crashed in rural Pennsylvania, have given Us law a new element. Although it is undeniable that the national govt is stepping up in an attempt in the counterterrorism, a major portion of the obligation for reacting to terrorism is delegated to local authorities (“Law Enforcement Responses to Terrorism”, 2019).
  2. Part A- Identify and analysis the key aspect of pre 9/11 law enforcement response to terrorism?
    “Terrorism is a violation of democratic values, Terrorism is a serious, extensive, and complex threat that no country in the western or outside is exempt to; it is genuine, prevalent, and complicated, but it must be properly analyzed to assure it’s neither overstated nor underestimated” (Prindani et al., 2020).
    The state has the fundamental duty and responsibility to avoid and confront terrorist attacks.

“The terror act on September 11, 2001 was a watershed moment for modern capitalism, but not because of the tragic event of almost 3,000 fatalities in the biggest economy in the world, but also because it brought into question the so-called ‘Global World Order,’ that also implied the United States’ political dominance after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.”
According Valle, the world’s progress would’ve been dominant result of Western capitalism states’ financial, geopolitical, and military dominance. The urban-industrial production process regulated by financial globalization of huge multinational private firms and by the neoliberalism democratic country of countries like the United States, United Kingdom, and France would guide communities without major involvement (Grinko, 2021).
Some of the Context that has been identified and analyzed are discussed below.
The context of 9/11 Terrorist Attack
The 9/11 attacks take place at such a time when the United States, having deal with the challenges of the Cold War and introduced to the development accrued over the previous ten decade of market boom, has reached full power strength of character and inhabits a place in the mythos of global powers only similar to ancient Rome (Hu et al., 2019).
Geopolitical and fragmentation:
To comprehend the attack, keep in mind that throughout the Cold War, the US contributed weapons, provided training, and cooperated with Afghan to stop the Soviet Union from extending its territory to the southeast and accessing oil fields or the Indian Ocean (Biryukov & Biryukova, 2018).
War on terror in the middle east and US responses in the initial stages of incidents
“It’s also worth noting that the ‘War against Terror’ resulted in the detention of US detainees at the Guantanamo military facility in Cuba, in order to circumvent state policies and regulations accords on the matter. The situation of these detainees, who have been held incommunicado for a few years even without right to a fair trial, is appalling.
Perrone further points out that the US administration’s war strategy in the first decade of the twenty-first century was fueled by the War against Terror, which led to the US declaring wars on Afghanistan and Iraq.
After Sept 11, 2001, the first US-led assault occurred in Afghanistan, headed by the Extremist Muslim organization Taliban, which was suspected of housing al-Qaeda troops. “US military operation was successful in overthrowing the Taliban mullahs’ regime and establishing a government that is more aligned with their best interest,” says the analysis.
It was further evaluated the implications of attacks from the perspective of international order, in aspects of fractures and continuities;
The Bush administration stated in 2003, alongside Uk, that Iraq, headed by Saddam Hussein ever since 1970s, had a vast arsenal of chemical weapons and posed a threat to the global population. “This was the justification for deposing Saddam Hussein, the former Iraqi tyrant who was imprisoned while Anglo-American forces bombarded the country mercilessly. After being discovered in hiding and being sentenced to death (Jarmakani, 2021).
It is further analyzed the impact of threats from the perspective of international order, in aspects of fractures and continuities.
2.1 Identify the key aspect of post 9/11 law enforcement response to terrorism.
A monument to the deceased of 9/11 has been created in New York’s World Trade Center area, one of hundreds across the country. However, the disaster’s influence in the United States extended across stone monuments and the recollections of individuals who experienced the atrocity (Roberts, 2014).
9/11-related reactions can be seen on both the Democrat and Republican sides of the Us political scale. The twenty years since the incident have had an impact on US diplomacy and world security, from Bush to Obama.
Aside from the rise of Middle East wars, amongst the most significant shifts was in Us intelligence. President Bush Signed the USA Patriot Act just after incidents (or the “Patriotic Law”). Without judicial approval, the order permitted security to collect conversations from persons suspected of involvement in terrorism.
It is further identified and analyzed that the aftermath of September 11 would have a long-term impact: The Patriot Act was prolonged until 2015 by President Obama in 2011. After that, Parliament amended it with the USA Freedom Act, which applies various data-handling limits. Activists have condemned spy agencies like the FBI and the NSA for wielding such authority over the last decade. It’s also the catalyst for instances like that of whistleblower Snowden, who disclosed NSA documents in 2013 revealing that the US was surveillance on civilians and even allies.
Even Nevertheless, there is skepticism among progressives about American invasion of Middle East nations, while the Military and intelligence services defend the actions as vital to combat terrorism. In reaction to the critique, Karl Rove, a senior Bush adviser, said that “several Republicans have a pre-9/11 mindset” and don’t comprehend the seriousness of the situation.
During the recent amendment, President Donald Trump’s administration, which had been in office since 2016, continues to had frequent disputes with the Arab world. One of the administration’s most contentious pronouncements was his intention to relocate the US consulate in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (a city revered by Jewish, Christian, and Muslims, and which Palestinians argue cannot be considered purely Israeli property).
Following the incident, American policies by Republicans and Democrats exacerbated the conflict between the United States, the Western, and the Arabian Peninsula. Despite Nato intrusions into Middle Eastern countries, states like Iraq and Afghanistan still have unstable political situations.
In conjunction to the establishment of the Islamist Group terrorist organization, the world has seen a succession of additional attacks since then, particularly in Europe. ISIS evolved mostly as a result of new Middle Eastern battles, like Syria’s civil conflict, which has been raging since 2011.
“Of certainly, there have been issues about violence before 9/11, but the world has changed significantly,” says Richard Fadden, who functioned as a defense secretary to the Canadian government even during the 9/11 era (Petrishak, 2020).

  1. Part B- Compare and contrast both responses and provide critical analysis of the difference.
    The major impact of the 9/11 attacks, according to analysis, was the integration of the so-called “War against Terrorism,” that was not aimed at a particular country but rather at an international politics, with the passage of a body of rules that, in the title of countering terrorism, limited the rights and security of US citizens, particularly foreign nationals.
    This tactic, were element of a US foreign affairs philosophy called as the Bush Doctrine. It composed of a sequence of diplomatic, economic, and armed steps against the so-called “evil dictator,” which was created by countries perceived as a danger to Western ideals such as democratization and personal liberty, according to the US president at the time of the strikes.
    “It’s also important to note that perhaps the ‘War against Terror’ resulted in the detention United States war prisoners at the Guantanamo military facility in Cuba, in order to bypass federal international laws accords on the matter. The situation of these detainees, who have been illegally detained over many years even without right to a fair trial, is appalling (Zanchetta, 2016).
    Its further identified that the US govt’s war strategy in the first decade of the twenty-first century was fueled by the Fight against Terrorism, which led to the US declaring invasions on Afghanistan and Iraq.
    Both the pre and post law enforcement response after the 9/11 yet needs to improve because the issues that arose at the moment are very far from resolved. “The Afghan War already has claimed the lives of over 75,000 people in a country that really is financially bankrupt, politically unpredictable, and culturally shattered. Because to the resistance and the existence of the militant organization, also Sunni, Islamic State, which wants the recovery of authority in territory, the battle begins in certain ways to this day (Cho, 2020).
    What impact has terrorism and the 9/11 attacks had on the United States’ immigration and counterterrorism initiatives? Discuss the incident of 9/11, and the War on Terrorism.
    The terrorist events of September 11, 2001, sparked a fundamental shift in the country’s approach to immigration, resulting in the creation of new government entities and stricter regulations on who is and isn’t permitted in. The Dhs did not exist prior to 9/11, which is perhaps the most significant distinction.
    Suggestion Strategies relevant to law enforcement for counter future terrorism
    While the Strategic Plan that follows is important for many reasons, I’d want to call attention to six points that I think are especially noteworthy:
    This isn’t just a counter-terrorism strategy; it’s a strategy that handles both terrorists and outcomes. specifically. For sometimes us federal government should working toward acknowledging counterterrorism and outcomes. specifically, as linked and connected, but this is the first national-level strategy to expressly acknowledge that terror and targeted aggression overlapping, intertwine, and are interconnected.
    Understand the changing threat landscape of extremism and targeted violence, and use this specialist information to assist security allies
    Prevent extremists and other hostile entities from accessing the US, and deny them access to the country’s trade, customs, and domestic and international travel networks.
    Terrorism and targeted violence must be avoided. Improve safeguarding assets and social readiness in the United States.
    Provides a new annual evaluation that will explain the current state of the Security danger. This new study will aid in the education of all branches of administration as well as the general people. Federal planning, department different localities, allocating resources, and cross collaborations will all benefit from a shared knowledge of risks within the National.
    The authorities can bring down any suspected extremists’ biometric measures and deny them access to any densely populated area that has been placed under observation. Biometrics can be used by police and government entities to track down lead and suspicions. Biometrics are used to prohibit terrorist suspects from attending a crowded gathering.
  2. Reference:
     Law Enforcement Responses to Terrorism. (2019), 19(June).
     Prindani, T., Subandi, I., Hukom, M., & Putri, F. (2020). HUMAN RIGHTS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT: THE USE OF FORCE IN COUNTER TERRORISM. Diponegoro Law Review, 5(1), 124-139.
     Grinko, S. (2021). Law enforcement activity and interaction of law enforcement agencies in the field of countering extremism and terrorism. Право И Государство: Теория И Практика, (3), 251-254.
     Hu, X., Lai, F., Chen, G., Zou, R., & Feng, Q. (2019). Quantitative Research on Global Terrorist Attacks and Terrorist Attack Classification. Sustainability, 11(5), 1487.
     Biryukov, S., & Biryukova, T. (2018). Non-legal rules: problems of their determination and enforcement (theoretical aspect). Law Enforcement Review, 2(4), 16-24.
     Jarmakani, A. (2021). Rendering Absence in the War on Terror. Journal Of Middle East Women’s Studies, 17(1), 131-136.
     Roberts, M. (2014). Critical Terrorism Studies Since 11 September 2001: What Has Been Learned? Edited by David Miller, Jessie Blackbourn, Rani Dhanda and Helen Dexter. New York, NT: Routledge, 2014. Journal Of Strategic Security, 7(1), 88-89.
     Petrishak, I. (2020). STATE PROTECTION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND COURTS: ADMINISTRATIVE ASPECT. Knowledge, Education, Law, Management, 3(5), 203-210.
     Zanchetta, B. (2016). Between Cold War Imperatives and State-Sponsored Terrorism: The United States and “Operation Condor”. Studies In Conflict & Terrorism, 39(12), 1084-1102.
     Cho, S. (2020). Continuity of Jihadist TERRORISM and EU-United States Cooperation in Counterterrorism. J-Institute, 5(1), 32-39.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *