Category: 11-Sep

As soon as the two planes collided with the twin towers of the World Trade Center the question that was foremost in the minds of the spectators and the millions of people around the world is this: who can be responsible for such an appalling act? For the many government officials, political leaders and concerned American citizens the second question came in just as quickly as the firs and they are asking how can this thing happen. For many veterans of the Second World War  and this does not only mean the combat troops  it was déjà vu, circa 1942, as if Pearl Harbor was happening all over again, this time around they witnessed the event as it happened. Many were asking how this thing can happen to the most powerful nation in the world and in response to that question there were a number of Federal policy changes that were made in the years following 9/11.

There were two major Federal policy changes in response to the public and political backlash of September 11 and these are:

• Intelligence gathering
• Information sharing

There was an assumption that one of the major responsibilities of the American government was to make sure that Pearl Harbor will never happen again. After all the destruction of that famous landmark, America went on to win World War II, became a global superpower, spent billions of dollars in tax payers money to upgrade the military and the intelligence gathering capability of the U.S. Armed Forces as well as increasing its clout in the global political arena. Why is it then that a group of terrorists can live within the U.S. mainland for a significant period of time and make plans to destroy an icon of democracy and free trade?

The terrorists were even successful in accessing resources such as the wherewithal to fly airplanes, kamikaze style. Thousands of lives perished in the aftermath of 9/11. But aside from the high death toll the destruction of the World Trade Center created an emotional and psychological impact that Americans will carry for the rest of their lives. All of a sudden it was no longer safe to walk the streets of downtown New York for instance. It was no longer safe to fly the short distance between two cities because no one knows when the next batch of terrorists will strike. This is unacceptable.

The Federal government has to initiate major policy changes. These policy changes must be implemented soon after the 9/11 attacks in order to foil another attempt to terrorize the people. There is a need for policy changes that will provide ample warning when it comes to terror plots. But the information that will be gathered from enhanced intelligence collection must also be given to the hands of the right person in the right agency during the most crucial moments in order to detect and apprehend terrorists. For instance, some of the extremists who commandeered the plane on September 11 were already part of list of people having ties to terrorism. If that piece of information was made available to authorities working in a particular area then he or she could have spotted these terrorists or made aware that suspicious persons are now in the city.

Intelligence Gathering

In Michael Turners book there is a quote taken from the pen of John Stuart Mill, and this can be used as to understand the essence of secret intelligence work: There is no such thing as absolute certainty, but there is assurance sufficient for purpose of human life (2005). It simply means that real-life spies need not bother the general public with their excuses for failure. They are not expected to know everything but at least they must know enough to either stop terrorists on their tracks or at least mitigate the impact of a terror attack. There are those who cannot forgive the former administration for their lapses in judgment while others are more tolerant saying that no one could have predicted a very unorthodox way of targeting civilians and causing maximum damage to major U.S. infrastructure. A compromise could have been the reduction of the impact, for instance instead of multiple attacks, superior intelligence gathering methods should have reduced the number of terrorists who were able to enter the U.S. and allowed to join forces with other members of Al Qaeda.

Intelligence is very crucial in the fight against terror. It has to be pointed out though that information gleaned from effective intelligence gathering can be viewed as, &a particular type of information that helps to inform, instruct, and educate the policy world (Turner, 2005). While this is easy to understand it is very hard to put it into practice. The nature of warfare has evolved from one that can be described as conventional to a type that can best be understood using guerilla tactics. Moreover, in ancient times the goal of fighting is to amass land and wealth but this time around a small army of recruits will blow themselves up just to send a message about a political or religious cause.

The enemy is made more complicated and more dangerous by the fact that they are an evolving threat (Carafano & Sauter, 2005). They are not only a ragtag army they are well-funded and has the ability to create sophisticated and highly organized groups. The idea of using cells allowed them to work independent of each other and even provided them the ability to become a leaderless resistance (Carafano & Sauter, 2005). This simply means that the ancient way of forcing the enemy to bend its knees  by killing their generals  will no longer work in the 21^st century war on terror. The moment one cell is obliterated another will take its place and since their goal is not to seek, destroy and go home, they are a very lethal group. Religious zealots willing to die as martyrs are unpredictable but no less deadly. These new breed of enemy soldiers require out-of-the-box thinking strategies in order to develop effective methods that will be tailor-made for the type of warfare that they wage.

In the aftermath of the September 11 attack the Federal government authorized an inquiry to fully understand how terrorists were able to see and exploit the weaknesses in homeland security. A report was submitted which became popularly known as the 9/11 Commission. The said report revealed glaring incompetence brought about by the inability to gather critical information that could have led to arrests and not just merely suspicion. The report highlighted the fact that a computer system was able to provide scant information about Mohamed Atta, one of the Al-Qaeda operatives who participated in the September 11 attacks.

The CAPPS computer system red-flagged Atta as a possible threat. This is the reason why his bags were held-off before the airport authorities were assured that he was on board the plane. They were afraid that he might have some form of an explosive device in his bags (The 9/11 Commission Report, 2008). But if they would have known that Atta is not an ordinary saboteur they could have held him for a longer period of time pending further investigation. The information that could have allowed authorities to do that was not at their disposal.

This was traced to the political backlash that the Federal Bureau of Investigation experienced during the 1970s when they employed hardball tactics to coax information from suspected criminals. Therefore in the decades that followed the FBI were hesitant to bend be more zealous when it comes to information gathering and their mindset was more on protecting human rights and ensuring freedom rather than the security of the state. All of that changed after the 9/11 tragedy.

One of the radical changes that were made was the creation of the Patriot Act and the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003. These two sets of laws allowed the expansion of the surveillance power of security agencies (Posner, 2006). These laws considerably broadened the powers of the authorities especially when it comes to examining private data such as emails of suspected terrorists. It must be said that the Homeland Security does not have the legal rights to go into someone elses home and gather information. There is still due process but more elbow room is given so that they can work more effectively.

Information Sharing

An elite intelligence gathering unit can be a very helpful tool in the fight against terror but it can be argued that their effectiveness can be enhanced if their data can be shared with various agencies under the Homeland Security umbrella. In this regard the Homeland Security Advisory Council proposed the creation of the Intelligence and Information Sharing Initiative: Homeland Security Intelligence and Information Fusion. This program is the management of the flow of information across different level and sectors of the U.S. intelligence community and it is more than a one-time collection of intelligence and even goes beyond establishing an intelligence center or a computer network (Homeland Security Advisory Council, 2005). In other words they will create a culture where information is shared on a more regular basis between disparate government agencies.

In order for that to happen, Homeland Security had to revise the manuals and to create a language for the intelligence community will understand. The problem with having separate groups is the creation of a particular language or lingo that is only understood within a group, outsiders will never be able to penetrate their intricate web of bureaucracy as well as the way they talk to each other. There is also the need to increase interaction with other groups especially those who are in the private industry who will be able to supply up-to-date and relevant data.

Conclusion

In the aftermath of the 9/11 terror acts the whole world knew that America is vulnerable to attacks staged by terrorists. Their superpower status is of no help when it comes to guerilla tactics employed by a group of men who had nothing of significance compares to regular armies. The United States had to become more flexible. They had to make an upgrade. It is a good thing that they focused on intelligence gathering and information sharing. These are two of the major issues addressed by the Homeland Security Council.

References

Carafano, J. & M. Sauter (2005). Homeland Security. New York: McGraw-Hill.& Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

The 9/11 Commission Report. 

Turner, M. (2005). Why Secret Intelligence Fails. Dulles, Virginia: Potomac Books, Inc.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2005). Intelligence and Information Sharing Initiative:

Homeland Security Intelligence & Information Fusion.

The 9/11 Commission was formed in 2002 after the events of September 11, 2001 to investigate what really happened (Entman & Stonbely, 2018). It was headed by former New Jersey Governor Thomas Keen (Hughes, 2020). The 9/11 attack in America is a series of coordinated terrorist acts that took place on September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington (USA) (Entman & Stonbely, 2018). As a result of the terrorist attacks, 2,974 people were killed (not including terrorists), 24 were missing. Citizens of the United States and 91 other states were killed (Entman & Stonbely, 2018). In particular, the Commissions 9/11 investigation was supposed to consider the circumstances surrounding the causes of the tragedy of that day. It was also stated that there was an obvious need to allocate additional funding to ensure the security of members of Congress.

The Commissions report was published on July 22, 2004 (Norris, 2019). It announced that a series of terrorist attacks was conceived, prepared and carried out by the Al-Qaeda organization (Johnson, 2018). Mohammed Attas luggage was detained at Boston Logan Airport. Documents revealing the identities of all 19 terrorists and a detailed description of the planned attacks were found in it (Johnson, 2018). The Commissions agency intercepted several messages pointing to Osama Bin Laden as the organizer of the terrorist attacks (Norris, 2019). The ideologist of the air attack on America is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who, in an interview with an Al Jazeera correspondent in September 2002, called himself the head of the Al Qaeda military council (Johnson, 2018). He was arrested in Pakistan on March 1, 2003, and fully admitted his guilt (Norris, 2019). The report of the 9/11 Commission states that Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds hostility to America is caused by an aggressive rejection of the US foreign policy supporting Israel.

References

Entman, R., & Stonbely, S. (2018). Blunders, scandals, and strategic communication in U.S. foreign policy: Benghazi vs. 9/11. International Journal of Communication, 12(28), 3024-3047.

Hughes, D. A. (2020). 9/11 truth and the silence of the IR discipline. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 71(4), 1-28.

Johnson, K. A. (2018). 9/11 and international student visa issuance. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(5), 393-413.

Norris, J. J. (2019). Explaining the emergence of entrapment in post9/11 terrorism investigations. Critical Criminology, 27(16), 467-483.

The Post-9/11 policy shifts are obviously reactive because all the proposed by the government changes are caused by the attack. Even the creation of the Department of Homeland Security is a response to the dangerous terroristic attack (Post-9/11,2019). In order to avoid or prevent such disastrous terroristic attacks, the government should propose proactive policies. However, proactive planning regarding terroristic attacks undermines the natural disasters threats (Congressional Research Service, 2011). Therefore, homeland security should focus on both types of threats proactively.

One of the most outstanding policies regarding terrorism issues is the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, 2004). This policy includes the section regarding the changes in the funding distribution to sponsor the National Counterterrorism Centers activities (Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, 2004). The mentioned act can be considered proactive because it is related to preparing the basis for preventing attacks or, at least, providing measures of instant reaction.

From my perspective, technological development provides more advanced opportunities for terrorists. The most dangerous ones are drones and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Today, many terrorist groups can carry out attacks from long distances. UAVs became powerful weapons by obtaining the technology to track the target and coordinates. The implementation of artificial intelligence and such technologies as smart spaces computer control can also be used by terrorists for malicious aims. Hacking the system distantly and creating dangerous conditions today is possible. Taking into consideration the mentioned innovations, the post 9/11 policy seems irrational. Such tragedy can be easily reiterated today using drones. Even though nowadays it is more politically dangerous to plan or perform attacks similar to 9/11, the opportunities are unlimited. Massive terroristic acts are more challenging to perform due to the threat of nuclear war, beholding the huge danger for the whole world. Therefore, counterterrorism organizations should consider such possibilities and design protection measures to react to such attacks.

References

Congressional Research Service. (2011). The national response framework: Overview and possible issues for congress. Web.

Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Public Law No. 108458 (2004). Web.

Post-9/11. (2019). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Web.

IT was September 11, 2001, a black Tuesday which was later named as the devils day of the history by our school. I was the student of St. Thomas Middle School, Alabama. As usual, I reached at the school in time in the early morning. I, being a student of the 7^th grade, was busy with completing my project work that was to be submitted on the next day. But I was eagerly looking forward for the next Sunday to come.

Because it would be more exciting moment for me as some cultural program was scheduled to be held on that Sunday. No student of my class was in a mood for study. Some of them were rehearsing for programme. Others were watching that. The programme would involve a number of drama activities consisting of still pictures, speaking thoughts, mimes, etc. I, being a spectator, was watching the activities interestingly. The time might be quarter to nine and I felt thirsty at that time.

All of a sudden some senior students along with teachers were found rushing towards the recreation room where every student used to watch TV. Our teacher was also informed that WTC attacked. I too rushed anxiously to watch the TV. Live telecast of WTC attack was telecasting in Fox News during that time. It was horrifying experience for me as well as the whole students of the school. Everyone got shocked. It was like total chaos in that room. Nobody dares to move. Everyones eyes were towards TV, without any blink. Some students got feared and took help of their friends for relaxing themselves. A few of them were of the view that the school may also affect by this attacks, may be a war. At TV screen it was like a modernized action movie scenes. It was not reel& But real scenes!

In the TV screen it was repeated showing that one of the Twin Towers changed into fire ball and other hit by a speedy Jet. One could clearly see in the TV that many people jumped off the windows of the towers as an ineffective effort. I could not believe that. I just felt that I was dreaming a night mare. Suddenly the WTO Towers changed into a heap of rubbles. Every channel was focusing their cameras towards the Ground Zero. It was confirmed that this attack was preplanned not mere an accident.

People were seen confused, anguished and running here and there for help. No one knew what to do? Where to go? How to escape? And even nobody knew what was happening? The premises were covered with thick smoke and dust. Nothing could be seen nearby. Many people while escaping were suffered breathing problem. Some lost their consciousness. I realized that something happened which is very disastrous in type. I realized about the consequences of the piles of rubbles at the Ground Zero. I just had a thought of people who were inside at the time of the collision and collapse of twin towers. I was like melted ice, shocked and feared.

I sobbed of my helplessness and think of their relatives. During this commotion the Police, Fire & Rescue Personnel, Ambulances were seen reached at the spot well in time. Rescue operations started. I was so upset to witness the crumbling of trade towers of United States. Rescue & Fire Personnel were seen engaged searching of any survivors. But there were little hope for any survivors. Because finding a survivor in the huge pile of rubbles was impossible. Possibly all of the victims might have dead due to fire and asphyxiation. Any way rescue team offered their services best.

I found in TV that people were searching for their relatives, friends with a little hope. Many of them, after continuous searching, lost their hope and sat down. They wept for their dear ones. Some prayed to god. Some cursed the god. But all of them were helpless to do anything to save people of WTO.

Simultaneously similar attacks were reported from three other parts of United States. The Pentagon, Head Quarters of US defense was targeted by another plane hijacked by the terrorists. The attacked planned for the dignified offices like the White House, the official residence of US President, US Capital Washington DC was crash landed at Pennsylvania. I came to know that it was a well planned terrorist attack on WTC. But there was no idea about the culprits behind this heinous deed. However, I deeply wished to be at home at that time. Somehow I remained calm and watched remaining news in TV. The road was shown totally blocked with full traffic.

The cameras of aired channels were continuously transmitting the live pictures and videos of the jet hit to the general people. The hit of two jet aero planes on the twin towers was so powerful and dreadful, due to the fire and high temperature of the burning fuel, the steel of the concrete walls got melted and it caused overall collapse of the towers.

The US citizens relieved to know that the US President George Bush was safe in an undisclosed location in the country. The another good news was that the terrorists failed in their mission to attack the White House. But I, being shocked, was not interested in knowing anything more about the attack. My ultimate aim was how to reach at home soon. I just took the help of my small bible for solace.

Fear is a natural response to life threatening situations and is a built-in behavioral pattern in all human beings. The author of the essay Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11 extensively quotes Chapman and Harriss article A Skeptical Look at September 11^th to construe that the fears generated in America after the 9/11 attacks are largely irrational and that the response of the US Government has been disproportionate to the actual threat from terrorism. This paper offers a critique of the authors premise on the irrationality of fears and responses post 9/11 attacks.

The author contends that the response of the American public and the Government to the 9/11 attacks were disproportionate if one were to simply look at the casualty figures of 2,800 dead as against 20,000 fatalities in an Indian earthquake that did not evoke a similar response (Chapman and Harris 456). The author states that in the US, the monthly fatalities due to road accidents is higher than the total casualties suffered in the 9/11 attacks.

The response of the authorities that showered substantial compensation on the relatives of 9/11 victims while giving no such compensation to the relatives of victims of road accidents who suffer the same loss of earning members, is, in the opinion of the author, irrational. The author opines that relativity of perception and misconstrued values are responsible to a large extent for the irrational fears that have been prevalent since 9/11. Larger fatalities due to natural disasters in a distant land are dismissed as acts of nature while a terrorist strike is given all the media attention and governmental action because it is closer home and is an act of malice.

The author opines that the governments irrational response in spending billions of dollars on its War on Terror could have been better utilized to find solutions to road fatalities and shoring up the economy. The author argues that the immense wastage of capital, human manpower within the US in setting up a Department of Homeland Security and external security structures could have been better utilized in halting economic recession at home. The author offers the premise that economic and emotional damage to the people of America was self inflicted due to the subjectivity and could have been avoided had the people viewed the entire event more objectively.

The authors theses are acceptable if one takes a narrow worms view of rationality. If one applies linear logic and inductive reasoning as the author has, then it is true that 2,800 deaths are insignificant compared to 20,000 deaths and that more number of people die in road accidents monthly in the US than those that did in the 9/11 attacks. However, such logic completely misses the larger perspective of duties of Nation States to its people and the Geo-political penalties of not providing adequate response to terrorist threats.

The preamble to the American Constitution notes that ensuring domestic tranquility, and providing common defense (Cornell University) as some of its ingredients. The Lockean Social Contract which formed the basis of the American nation state makes it incumbent on the State to provide for the security of its citizens who in turn would honor the rules and regulations set by the state. Thus from the view of state obligations, the government has to take all measures possible to ensure the safety and security of its people and prevent any further terrorist attacks.

Terrorism is nothing but illegal use of force to coerce societies or governments by inducing fear in their populations (Smelser, Faith and Council 2). The fact that a fear psychosis had taken hold in the US post 9/11 is undisputed. That the government needed to act quickly to calm its citizens is also a fact. No amount of rationality as argued by the author can counter the fact that a robust response both within the United States and abroad was required to reassure the American people.

It is to the credit of the US government and the Department of Homeland Security that since 9/11 no terrorist attacks have taken place on American soil, heavy expenditure notwithstanding. A discourse on the rationality of response is a luxury that only writer like the author can afford who has no responsibility or accountability unlike the government which is accountable to its people for their security.

Terrorism is a mind game. The perpetrators of 9/11 not only sought to kill as many people as possible in the attack, but also tried to attack the image of a country with superpower status. A weak American response would have altered geo-political perceptions. Friends and adversaries would have taken a weak response to be signs of American decline and changed their policies to the detriment of US national interests in the long term.

So from the strategic point of view, a robust response was not only essential but also inescapable. The very fact that the US could mount a counter-offensive within 48 hours of the incident in far off Afghanistan and successfully rout the Taliban in the initial phases of the operation restored Americas image as the foremost military power in the world. Very simply put, the world does not care much about the quantum of American deaths in road accidents, but it does pay a premium to understand and see what sort of response the Americans would have taken against an attack on its own soil.

A weak response would have signaled a shift in global power balance and a possible realignment of forces. The deterrent effect of the initial phases of War on Terror on would- be attackers was immense, which cannot be quantified or trivialized as the author of the essay has sought to do. The authors satirical conjecture on random searches of luggage of elderly ladies getting on airplanes in Wyoming does disservice to the fact that heightened security has ensured a 100 percent safe travel by air throughout the US since 9/11.

That some civil liberties would be restricted in some sense, is a price that almost all Americans have willingly foregone in return for physical and psychological security. A vast majority of American people approved actions and responses of the government on its war on terror in 2002. In fact, President Bush gained an approval rating of about 68% in 2002 (Gallup Poll), the time when the Chapman and Harris article was written.

In conclusion, it can be stated that the essay Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11 relies on simplistic inductive reasoning that leads to a misinterpretation of facts. The essay clearly brings out the writers narrow focus that eschews the need to understand and analyze the larger issues of constitutional duties of a nation state, and statecraft against the backdrop of Geo-politics. The response of the American people post 9/11 was a natural and instinctive response. The actions of the American government after the 9/11 attacks were not irrational but in fact, necessary and inescapable to restore the faith of the American people in its government and that of the wider world in the continued relevance of American power.

Works Cited

Chapman, Clark R and Alan W Harris. A Skeptical Look at September 11th: How we can Defeat Terrorism by Reacting to it More Rationally. Skeptical Inquirer (2002): 456-458.

Cornell University. United States Constitution. 2009. Cornell University website. Web.

Gallup Poll. Bush Approval at 68%. 2002. Gallup Poll website. Web.

Smelser, Neil, et al. Terrorism: Perspectives From the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press, 2002.

September 11 aroused not only national grief, pride, and rage, but also a prevalent feeling of frustration at the way things were since the fall of communism. In the Cold War era, the United States had operated via a containment policy in an attempt to prevent the propagation of communism, especially in Western Europe and North America  the free world. Following the fall of communism and the Soviet Union, the decade-long period leading to September 11, 2001, saw a United States  the worlds sole superpower  that operated with the rest of the world by consensus. The result of the latter operation model was the first successful terrorist attack on the United States mainland since the British torched Washington in 1812 (Lewis 623).

The United States was unprepared  a show of recklessness regarding the nations ostensibly rocky relationship with the Muslim world. Herein is a description of the necessary background to the events of September 11, outlining the social conditions, the actors, the sociological theories, the politicians and media reaction, as well as the memorialization of 9/11 events.

Two commercial flights  American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175  crashed into the north and south towers of the World Trade Center, and another American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001. In a halting speech at Emma Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida, then-President George Bush termed the tragedy an apparent terrorist attack (Simko 880).

The attack was an act of violence that was the perpetrators show of defiance and dissatisfaction with the United States for the superpowers actions and attitudes towards the Muslim world. The 9/11 bombings were an act of collective violence that was not only social and political but also economical. According to the World Health Organization, collective violence is a type of violence inflicted by larger groups such as states, organized political groups, militia groups, and terrorist organizations (6).

9/11 came approximately a decade after the fall of communism. The worlds sole superpower continued to exert its power on the rest of the world through an international community project. The international community project aimed to achieve harmony, prosperity, and liberty under the stewardship of the west (Lewis 622). This goal probably explains the United States consensus modus operandi as she interacted with the rest of the world. The growth of an international community and globalization spread throughout the world, fast, especially in the wake of the Internet and the proliferation of the World Wide Web. With the growing globalization came prosperity to many nations that had been previously poor. There was also an inspired resentment towards the west by the rest of the world.

Additionally, there were instances of post-communism and post-colonial conflicts before 9/11which either damped or died down in the long-run. However, these conflicts did not cease to be a continually renewed source of destructive energy. The Islamic fundamentalist challenge to a world order dominated by the Christian west was a central feature surrounding the 9/11 attacks. Islamic fundamentalists wished to uphold traditional beliefs at all costs, in an updated form that is stricter and more combative than in the past (Lewis 574). Repressive governments in the Muslim world held down the Islamic fundamentalists, but the fundamentalists did not go down without amassing popular support in Muslim states where fundamentalists were not in power.

Eventually, the Federal Bureau of Investigations  FBI  and the Central Intelligence Agency  CIA  following months on end of investigations, finally put a face to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack. The Al Qaeda  an Islam terrorist group  under the stewardship of a wealthy Saudi fugitive Osama Bin Laden were the planners and executors of the attack. Taking a look back at the post-communism atmosphere between the United States and the Muslim world, Islamic terrorism was gaining in formidableness.

Perhaps, the growth of Islamic terrorism and collective violence borrowed from Bin Laden and Al Qaedas success in driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan. From this background, Islamic terrorist groups saw acts of violent terrorism as a resort to conduct violent attacks on organized states and weak states to harass the strong ones.

Religious extremism, coupled with Islamic fundamentalist teachings, only worsened the situation leading to the 9/11 attack. As Lewis (618) posits, antiterrorism efforts became less effective with the growing technology and the growth of suicide bombing. What fueled the already aggressive Islamic terrorism was the belief that the United States was the deadliest enemy to Islam and the Muslim world. In the Muslim world, as the Islamic fundamentalist militants and religious extremists put it, the United States was a source of cultural contamination.

They cited the United States support for Israel and the presence of United States unbelieving troops in Saudi Arabia as reasons why it was every ardent Muslims holy duty to kill Americans, civilians or military alike. Saudi Arabia is home to the holiest of mosques located at Mecca and Medina, and the presence of the infidels in the holy land was an insult to Allah.

The 9/11 attack was not the first Islamic terrorists attempt to attack the United States. In 1995 and 1996, Al Qaeda affiliated groups attacked United States installations in Saudi Arabia using truck bombings, and in 1998 they attacked the United States Embassy in Kenya by a car bomb (Lewis 618). According to a fatwa that Bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al Zawahiri issued in February 1998  which the named the World Islamic Front  killing an American was the individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it (9/11 Commission 47).

Terrorism by such groups as the Al Qaeda was global, inhumane, and a kind of private violence on an international scale. However, by 9/11, none of Al Qaedas attacks occurred within the United States soil, and none had involved suicide bombers  or martyrs as they preferred. As Lewis postulates, Bin Laden and Al Qaedas intention when they planned the 9/11 attacks was a way to unite the Muslim world and rally the Islamic nations behind the Al Qaeda.

The choice of the targets to bomb in the attack elicits the economic and politico-military dimension of the attack. The bombers targeted the World Trade Centers Twin Towers, which to the extremist fundamentalist bombers symbolized the United States wealth and power, all of which they resented. Targeting the Pentagon was a statement of political and military defiance towards the United States. The Pentagon was and still is the seat of the United States Department of Defense; attacking the very heart of the entire United States Department of Defenses headquarters was a statement of military prowess against the infidel from the bombers perspective.

From an observers perspective, terrorist attacks like the 9/11 attack are physical and deprivation in nature. Additionally, as Silver posits, the goals of terrorism are inherently psychological in nature (427). The objective of the terrorists is to disrupt society, and they rely on instilling fear and anxiety to achieve this objective. A disrupted society suffers both long-term and short-term social, political, psychological, and economic consequences. The consequences that the victims suffer may make the targeted group or government give in to the terrorists demands.

With all these underlying facts revolving around the events of 9/11, the terrorist attack demonstrates a real-life functionalist theory in sociology. According to Kendall (14), the functionalist theory assumes a stable, orderly society that operates on societal consensus where a majority of society members share common values, beliefs, as well as behavioral expectations and norms. In this society are interrelated parts, each performing varying functions that ideally contribute to the societys orderliness and stability.

Acts of terrorism  like the 9/11 attack  are intermittent deviations from the equilibrium in a stable and orderly society, and they are equally functional in society (Cinoglu and Ozeren 49). For some time in the wake of the 9/11 attack, American society witnessed a temporary disruption in all spheres of life. For instance, the American and Canadian airspaces remained closed until September 13, while Wall Street closed until September 17.

From the functionalists perspective, the events of 9/11 performed various latent functions in line with Mertons manifest and latent functions model of functionalism. 9/11 events strengthened American societys in-group solidarity and cohesiveness. Out of the shock the American society suffered, they elicited a renewed religious commitment as church attendance rose by six percent on the weekend following 9/11 (Uecker 477) as Americans stood in solidarity with the victims of the attack. 9/11 events also helped to clarify social rules in America.

As Silver (427) posits, Americans now tolerate longs queues at the airports as they get scrutinized for security reasons. The events of 9/11 strengthened the rules for security screening in public places. Furthermore, the 9/11 events brought about the much-needed change in American society. As earlier mentioned, the Americans before 9/11 lived with a false sense of security and perceptions of invulnerability (Silver 427). The events of 9/11 shattered this falsehood and created the awareness and the need for intelligence gathering to counter future terrorist attacks. Lastly, the events of 9/11 made conformity seem more desirable than deviance.

As Lewis (623) puts it, all the nations considered as Axis of Evil, terrorist movements, and countries that aided them as well as Islamic fundamentalist states and movements were liable for a military attack by the US. Iraq was the first target of this new United States operational model. After much struggle, Iraq finally readmitted United Nations inspectors for WMDs  whom she had initially expelled  and eventually, Sadam Hussein was deposed from power in Iraq. Such developments resulting from the events of 9/11 elicit the desirability of conformity Vis a Vis defiance.

Despite the extensive attention from the entire world, the actors in 9/11 were two  the perpetrator and the victim. As mentioned earlier, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda finally owned up to being responsible for the attack. The victim was the nation of the United States and its citizens. The perpetrator and victim were socially polarized groups on religious, political, social, and economic bases. When Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda finally acknowledged their responsibility for the 9/11 attack, Bin Laden cited the United States support of Israel, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, and sanctions against Iraq as reasons why he called for the attack on Americans.

Al Qaedas goal as an Islamic fundamentalist and religious extremist group is to clear the world of political and religious pluralism, the plebiscite, and equal women rights (9/11 Commission xvi). As the 9/11 commission adds, Bin Laden was a patient and ruthless planner who schemed his attacks well in advance and did not get frustrated by setbacks (189). On the receiving end of the attack was a nation and a government that was unwieldy and unprepared for the 9/11 events. In chapters six and seven of the 9/11 Commission Report, the commissioners reported that there were signs and reports of an imminent attack.

However, policymakers and the citizens for varying reasons did not foresee an attack of the magnitude witnessed on 9/11. 2977 Americans died, and 25,000 injured on 9/11. Others died later from the direct and indirect effects of the attack, while the American economy lost over $10 billion.

Besides the perpetrator-victim social polarization, the atmosphere in America was a significant enabler for the attackers. First, Americans and their government did not feel threatened because the only successful attacks on the United States or any other sovereign states had been organized by other states, not small, underfunded, and loosely organized militant groups like the Al Qaeda  compared to the US government.

Bin Laden recruited, oversaw, and financed the training of the nineteen suicidal hijackers. Led by Mohamed Atta, the other three pilots  Manwar Al Shehhi, Hani Hanjour, and Ziad Jarra  steering the hijacked planes received pilot training in the United States. This fact implies that the hijackers had firsthand knowledge of American airspace operations, which they would exploit to their advantage. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the Al Qaeda plan also received help from the Iranian state as well as the Hezbollah in Lebanon and Beirut (240). Though hotly contested, there were allegations that the Al Qaeda also received support from a faction within the Saudi Arabian government.

The media and the political class reacted variedly to the events of 9/11. Kellner (132) posits that the American media was passive in investigating the reports it aired because it relied heavily on the 9/11 Commission report instead of independent investigations. There was no harmony in the media reports about how the hijackers boarded and crashed the planes and in the details of President Bushs initial reaction and immediate response following the attack. Nonetheless, the American media unanimously achieved four things:

it promoted fear after 9/11, bought into the assumptions of the Bush Administrations war on terror, elevated Bush to the status of Supreme Leader, and then largely reproduced the Administrations lies and propaganda that propelled the country into the Iraq quagmire (Kellner 132).

The politicians in the wake of the 9/11 attack became significantly partisan. In an address to the nation on the night of 9/11, President Bush told Americans, Today our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist attacks (Simko 886). The president then made a declaration of war on terror, telling the rest of the world they either supported the US or the terrorists. The media was entirely behind Bush and his conservative Republican regime. When Senator Tom Daschle  Senate minority leader  asked legitimate questions about the nature and scope of Bushs war on terror, the media and right-wing politicians savaged him as unpatriotic.

To date, the entire United States continues to observe the grim events of 9/11. According to Brown, Its become a solemn and sacred ritual in the United States each September 11  pausing for part of the day to remember the victims of the 9/11 terror attacks. In addition to this ritualistic observance of the events of 9/11, to memorialize the events of 9/11, the US government constructed the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, Manhattan, NY, the Pentagon Memorial, Virginia, DC, and the Flight 93 National Memorial, Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Every year, the Tribute in Light memorial  an imitation of the twin towers of the World Trade Center  illuminates the sky of New York atop the 9/11 Memorial Plaza on the September 11-12 night as Americans commemorate the tragic events of 9/11.

Since 2014, the National September 11 Memorial and Museum has been documenting the events of 9/11 to the public besides hosting the annual commemoration ceremony, which is a private function for the families of those that perished in the attack. The Pentagon Memorial in Virginia has 184 empty benches all dedicated to the people who perished in the Pentagon attack. The Pentagon Memorial also hosts a private memorial service for survivors and the families of the deceased. The Flight 93 National Memorial has a visitor center and viewing platform where members of the public get an unobstructed view of the crash site for United Airlines Flight 93.

Additionally, every September 11, Flight 93 National Memorial hosts the Annual Remembrance, which is open to the public. From a personal perspective, such memorialization initiatives are sufficient in honoring those who perished on 9/11. The fact that the annual commemorations at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are private functions for survivors and family members of victims is a noble thing because it gives them the privacy, serenity, and space they need to remember their loved ones.

Works Cited

9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Commission Report. 2004. Web.

Brown, Forrest. 9/11 Memorials and Remembrances around the US. CNN. 2019.

Cinolu, Hüseyin, and Süleyman Özeren. Classical Schools of Sociology and Terrorism. Eski_ehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, vol. 11, no. 2, 2010, pp. 4359. Web.

Kellner, Douglas. The Media In and After 9/11: Book Review. International Journal of Communication, vol. 1, 2007, pp. 123142. Web.

Kendall, Diana. Sociology in Our Times: The Essentials. Student ed., Cengage Learning, 2016. eBook.

Lewis, Gavin. WCIV Volume 2: Since 1300. Student ed., Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.

Silver, Roxane Cohen. An Introduction to 9/11: Ten Years Later. American Psychologist, vol. 66, no. 6, 2011, pp. 427428. Web.

Simko, Christina. Rhetorics of Suffering: September 11 Commemorations as Theodicy. American Sociological Review, vol. 77, no. 6. 2012, pp. 880902. Web.

Uecker, Jeremy E. Religious and Spiritual Responses to 9/11: Evidence from the Add Health Study. Sociological Spectrum, vol. 28, no. 5, 2008, pp. 477509. Web.

World Health Organization. Chapter 1: Violence  a Global Public Health Problem. pp. 321. Web.

The speech Come September by Arundhati Roy touches on the various negative events that took place on September 11th in the US, Latin America, India, and the Middle East. At the beginning of the speech, he talks about the Twin Tower attack that took place one year prior to Roys speech. While emphasizing the impact this tragedy had on American society, he slowly moved to discuss anti-Americanism and how the US was responsible for a number of atrocities that negatively affected the world.

Throughout the speech, Arundhati depicts how the US governments military involvement in foreign affairs has negatively affected different parts of the globe. He emphasizes the way the concept of anti-Americanism is used against even those who are Americans themselves for being against wars being waged in the Middle East (Roy, 2002). The speaker reviews how self-proclaimed peacemakers were the cause of devastating bloodshed and how the current system is bound to change.

I find the depicted issues to be more complex than he thinks they are. While it is important to note that Roy acknowledges that his countrys government is just as corrupt in regard of criticism, his speech seems slightly biased (Roy, 2002). Although the wars in the Middle East are certainly a tragedy, the conversations surrounding this issue require more context and a significantly more flexible perspective.

In conclusion, I believe that the speaker has made some very interesting points. However, I find his speech to be slightly biased, for these events require a more flexible approach. That way, one will be able to emphasize the tragedy of the events while not succumbing to a one-sided perspective on the issue. It is undeniable, however, that the US approach to situations similar to these is rather flawed and may sometimes do more harm than good.

Reference

Arundhati Roy (2002) Come September. Lensic Performing Arts Center. 2002.