Dan Dugan Political Science Dr.

Pete Hatemi
Time is passing. Yet, for the United States of America, there will be no forgetting September the 11th. We will remember every rescuer who died in honor. We will remember every family that lives in grief. We will remember the fire and ash, the last phone calls, the funerals of the children. President George W. Bush, 11/11/2001

The September 11th terrorist attacks - never before has a horrible, terroristic tragedy of its magnitude befallen the United States on its own soil. Almost 3000 people were killed and even more were injured. The aftermath has forever changed the American political system. Prior to the 9/11 attacks, the United States believed it could pursue any foreign policy it wanted with little to no consequences (Walt 4). After all, having oceans to the East and West with allies to the North and South seemed quite secure. America learned the hard way, however, that there are consequences for every action you make in the sphere of international relations.

Audrey Cronins decsription of terrorism as, a complicated, eclectic phenomenon, requiring a sophisticated strategy oriented toward influencing its means and ends over the long term illustrates the difficulty a government would find when attempting to deal with it. The Bush administration pursued a hard-line, Neo-Conservative policy toward terrorism following the attacks. Al-Qaeda was to be annihilated and the Taliban shortly after. With the level of military technology that the United States possessed, many assumed that the War on Terror would be quick and decisive. The Bush Administration expected the other nations in

the Axis of Evil (Bush State of the Union Address, 2002) to see the swift and sure justice of America. The bandwagoning mentality was expected to take hold, and North Korea and Iran would try to avoid angering the United States any further by dropping their pursuit of nuclear weapon programs (Mearsheimer 2).

Over the years, however, the Bush administration came to the hard realization that occupying a nation the size of Iraq would be no easy feat (Mearsheimer 2). The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq required more troops than expected, and bandwagoning was rendered virtually useless because it forced the US military to remain in one place for an extended period of time. The crusade for Democracy had to be temporarily suspended.

Former President Theodore Roosevelts famous quote, Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far describes Neo-Conservatism, the theory behind the Bush Doctrine, in a nutshell. It thrives off of the combination between idealism and strong military power (Mearsheimer 1), and is inherently different from both the Realist and Liberalist schools of thought. Neo-Conservatism believes strongly in bandwagoning. Looking at the Iraq situation from a Neo-Conservatist point of view, you would see a world in which getting rid of Saddam Hussein as the dictator of Iraq would encourage the rest of the Middle East to pay close attention to what you are demanding. From a Realist point of view, such an action would encourage other nations to redouble their resistance efforts (Mearsheimer 2). According to Charles Krauthammer, the fathers of Neo-Conservatism are former liberals or leftists (Krauthammer 7). The largest difference between the two theories is that Liberalism

puts a larger emphasize on multilateralism than Neo-Conservatism. For example, George W. Bushs Administration is much more likely to pursue its own ends without waiting for UN approval, whereas Liberalism would likely view that approval as a necessity to proceed. Neo-Conservatism has been criticized as being based too much on utopian society, and Realism is often criticized for lacking imagination.

The September 11th attacks forced the Bush Administration into an extremely tough situation. The arguments for preventative war were fairly worthy. Saddam Hussein was a notorious violator of human rights, and posed a threat to the stability in the Middle East. Deposing him would allow the United States to set up a model democracy for other Arab nations to work towards. In addition, the Invasion of Iraq offered the chance to avenge the losses of thousands of American citizens in the 9/11 bombings.

Had I been in the place to advise the Bush Administration on a course of action in February 2003, however, I would have recommended following the Realist school of IR and restraining from invading Iraq. Despite the virtues of preventative war, I believe that it was not the correct decision. The deep-running patriotism in America after the September 11th terrorist attacks blinded many people to the reality of the situation, leaving only the desire for revenge against al-Qaeda. Invading Iraq under the guise of finding nuclear weapons when there was no empirical evidence contradicts what the United States was founded on. Preemptive war contradicts the beliefs of the founding fathers, as well. Thomas Jefferson himself believed that it was a nations own right to determine for themselves the best

government (Hendrickson and Tucker 6). In addition, anti-American sentiment would compound because of yet another war that was not considered necessary by much of the world and might lead to more recruits for al-Qaeda. Oil prices would be driven higher, and many lives would be lost - both military and civilian. Lastly, a preemptive strike could potentially provoke further terroristic actions by al-Qaeda.

Many renowned IR scholars such as David Hendrickson, Stephen Walt, Robert Tucker, and more have offered both critiques and suggestions for the response of the Bush Administration to the September 11th attacks. The David Hendrickson and Robert Tucker collaboration, The Freedom Crusade, challenges some of the statements and beliefs of the Bush Administration. Bushs claims in his second inaugural address that the founding fathers would have supported the militant spreading of democracy worldwide is heavily criticized. According to the authors, many of the founding fathers would have completely disagreed with the forceful propagation of democracy (Hendrickson and Tucker 2). John Quincy Adams stated that, America should be the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all, but the champion and vindicator only of her own (Hendrickson and Tucker 6). Hendrickson and Tucker believe that the Bush Administrations strong vocal support of democracy is not consistent with its actions. It failed to challenge the governments of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt because of the potential instability such actions would have caused (Hendrickson and Tucker 3).

Stephen Walt, a professor of international affairs at Harvard University, offers excellent input in his piece Beyond bin Laden. With regards to the world view of the United States, Walt begins by suggesting that the United States focus on taking a more unbiased mediator role in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Much of the Arab and Islamic world views the United States on Israels side, and Walt believes that if America pressures both sides enough, a sovereign Palestinian nation can be achieved. He suggests that the US make it clear that it does not support Israels expansionism and expects Israel to make a better offer than was made at Camp David. Walt also argues that while befriending the Arab governments in control helps in the short term, America needs to focus on improving its image with the Arab and Islamic populations in the Middle East if it hopes to achieve its objectives in the long term. Despite Bushs assertion that, We are guided by the conviction that no nation can build a safer, better world alone (Bush in National Security Strategy 5) and In keeping with our heritage and principles, we do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage (Bush in National Security Strategy 3), Walt describes the Bush Administration (in its early years) as unilateralist. By approaching problems in the world through multilateralist ways, America can assure the world that it has more than just its own interests at heart.

Part of the Arab worlds poor perception of the United States comes from inaccurate information. Walt offers the example of the United States being blamed for Saddam Husseins unwillingness to cooperate with the UNs oil-for-food program (Walt 73). He suggests that America launch a massive information campaign, involving training diplomats

to work with the local media outlets and expanding Arabic broadcasts and websites (Walt 73). The United States should attempt to remove most of its troops from the Gulf region and declare its hope that democracies will rise (Walt 72). Walt is quick to make sure, however, that the reader knows he does not support idly standing by in the case of genocides.

Walt believes that the changing foreign policy of the United States needs to be addressed, and certain relationships need to be strengthened. Since the time of the Cold-War, US-Russian interactions have been strained. Another denuclearization pact between America and Russia in addition to allowing Russia to join NATO could help the nations grow together (Walt 66). The Chinese government has not tried to exploit Americas situation, and it needs to recognize and reciprocate this act by not overstepping its bounds with the Taiwan situation (Walt 67). The United States is a wealthy and prosperous country. Helping less fortunate nations out a little more could go a long way toward restoring worldwide respect for America. The Marshall Plan, established after World War II to help European countries recover from the devastation they experienced, is a prime example of a potential way to help.

The United States still struggles with multiple topics Walt thought necessary to address, but not all. Access to accurate and up to date information is becoming much more prominent in the Middle East, although it is not at the level one would hope. The government still struggles to fix its image among the Arab nations, but such an action will take many years to execute. President Obama has continued to pressure for denuclearization worldwide, in accordance with Walts recommendations. Perhaps the most disappointing

failure by the government with regards to Walts recommendation is the Israel-Palestine debacle. Progress has been made, but no concrete deal has been struck creating a Palestinian state or easing tensions between the two groups. Condoleezza Rice described the situation quite well when she stated, At this time last year, such unprecedented progress seemed impossible. One day it will all seem to have been inevitable.

*Note: I pulled a quote from George W. Bushs State of the Union Address from 2002*