The Lasting Impact of 9/11

Now that the U.S. approaches the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attack, Washington State University Associate Professor of Political Science Tom Preston explains how the terrorist attack provided political leaders a “blank check” regarding national security, how North Korea and Iran find it easier to pursue their WMD programs, and how, in Preston’s opinion, terrorists will try to use bio-weapons to attack civilian targets. 

“First and foremost, 9/11 radically altered the normal calculation which the nation’s leaders had to make before engaging in any international military actions which threatened to be costly in either lives or monetarily. Indeed, during Operation Allied Force over Kosovo toward the end of the Clinton administration, even a handful of U.S. combat deaths would have ignited a political firestorm for the White House,” Preston said.  

“In the emotional aftermath of the terror attacks, and the subsequent wave of extremely heightened nationalism/patriotism across the nation, the U.S. public essentially provided political leaders with a ‘blank check’ regarding national security and fighting the ‘war on terror.’  There was a broad public acceptance of using massive military force to deal with the threat posed by Al Qaeda, and a tolerance (within limits) for U.S. military casualties unseen in America since the early days of Vietnam. As a result, the Bush administration was able to invade and occupy two countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) and ride through the political aftermath of events in both places not proceeding according to plan. Whatever the wisdom of either venture, it is clear that in the absence of 9/11, no U.S. president would have been given the political freedom to undertake the kind of military actions President Bush has done by the public.” 

Regarding the WMD programs in Iran and North Korea, Preston believes that both countries realize that the U.S. military would be unable to retaliate against them because of the on-going war in Iraq. “It was not 9/11 that has shaped U.S. policy towards either Tehran or Pyongyang, but rather, our becoming bogged down in Iraq and overburdening the U.S. military.  

“Basically, both of these countries understand that with 85% of the U.S. Army tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Reserves and National Guard tapped out, Washington just doesn’t credibly have the military capability to do more than launch ineffectual air strikes against them.  And certainly there is no capability to engage in sustained, high intensity combat in these other theatres. As a result, both have been emboldened and are finding it easier -rather than more difficult- to pursue their WMD programs.” 

Preston, who has published several books and book chapters on leadership, advisory relations, international security and foreign policy analysis, also said that some actions taken after 9/11 are more legitimate than others. “Afghanistan was legitimately part of the ‘war on terror’ given the Taliban support for Al Qaeda basing itself in that country,” he said. “Unfortunately, adopting a ‘cookie-cutter’ approach to policy has resulted in unrelated cases (like Iraq) being lumped in with legitimate ones (like Afghanistan).  The end result of this, and the ‘axis of evil’ focus by the White House, has been a substantial weakening of US foreign policy effectiveness vis-à-vis both Iran and North Korea.” 

In his forthcoming book “From Lambs to Lions: Future Security Relationships in a World of Biological and Nuclear Weapons,” Preston comes to the conclusion that it is only a matter of time until a terrorist group employs WMD against either the U.S. or its allies. He believes that Washington has not done much to effectively address this issue. “For example, five years after 9/11, we still have not adequately secured the cargo airline industry, have only this year begun screening cargo aboard passenger airliners, and still inspect under 3 percent of the 600,000 cargo containers entering U.S. ports ever day,” he said. 

“We have failed to invest adequately in bio-preparedness, upgrading our response capabilities to a bio-terror incident by investing in our hospitals, have failed to get serious about funding research into new antibiotics, antivirals, etc.  The list is depressingly long and underscores the main problem – that we always prepare to fight the last war rather than the future one. We only prepare for how we ‘have been’ attacked instead of how we ‘could’ be attacked.  

Preston can be reached at tpreston@wsunix.wsu.edu or 509.335.5225.