The Socio-Political Factors of 9/11: Motivations and Responses - Essay Example

The Socio-Political Factors of 9/11: Motivations and Responses In the wake of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, DC. Pres. Bush declared a war on terror. The war on terror follows quickly upon the Cold War and though many obvious differences exist, many similarities can also be found. Despite these similarities, however, most people would be hard pressed to find a connection between the actions of the United States during the Cold War and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism that has given rise to the much hotter war on terror. Surprisingly, perhaps, the key connection between the Cold War and the current War on Terror is only too apparent. It may perhaps be far too simplistic to even suggest pointing to one singular event as the cause behind the rise of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism culminated in the 9/11 attacks and thereafter completely changed the political landscape within the US, but if any one event can be said to be the most important, then it would be the Soviet Union’s ill-fated decision to invade Afghanistan in 1979 (Fellure 2005). The Cold War, of course, consisted of an ever-increasing series of Spy v. Spy type games meant to the draw the opposing side into situations meant to undermine their ability to fully fund their individual ideologies. The US had been drawn into the quagmire of the Vietnam partly due to Russian backing of the opposing forces; Afghanistan was looked upon by the Carter administration as an opportunity for payback (Girardet and Walter 2004). The Soviet decision to invade Afghanistan could never have been seen by anybody at the time as the watershed moment in world history that it became, but in retrospect it clearly was a turning point in history that would eventually create a full-scale sea change in the geopolitical landscape. Once Ronald Reagan was elected President, that sea change was virtually assured and, even more so, the stage was set for the rise of the Islamic terrorist as he is known today. In one of those great ironies that history sometimes produces, the result of Pres. Reagan’s efforts to destroy one enemy resulted in the creation of an enemy that already has turned out to be much most costly to American soil; the ultimate irony of ironies is that during today’s enemy was yesterday’s ally. Pres. Ronald Reagan receives an undo share of credit for bringing about the collapse of the Soviet Union, but so far has managed to escape practically any blame whatever for contributing to the rise of Islamic terrorist in general and Osama Bin Laden in particular. Reagan spent much of his administration providing aid, technology and weapons to a ragtag army struggling to fend off the Russian invaders (Coll 2004). At the time this army, known then as the Mujahadeen, were actually publicly praised by Reagan as freedom fighters. Such was the positive view of these Afghan soldiers that they were actually the heroes in a Sylvester Stallone film, Rambo III (Fellure 2005). Ronald Reagan and Sylvester Stallone were not the only millionaires heaping praise upon the Mujahadeen, nor was the US the only benefactor for them. A wealthy Saudi Arabian who clung tightly to a particular fundamentalist view of Islam was also helping to fund these freedom fighters. His name was Osama Bin Laden and after the Soviets surrendered and withdrew from Afghanistan he was held up as a hero, partly because he hadn’t changed his tune on about the Mujahadeen. Those freedom fighters were now looked upon a dangerous terrorists by the US after they took control of Afghanistan and became known by another name: the Taliban. By 1991 the US had completely withdrawn all help to the Afghans as they struggled to put back together a country torn apart by years of war; Osama Bin Laden remained a benefactor and moved from hero status to mythic status (Coll 2004). Of course, Afghanistan is the not the only remnant from the Reagan administration that has had an influence on the political instability taking place in the Middle East. Although not directly linked to the 9/11 attacks, US policies toward Iran has perhaps contributed to a deeper distrust of the US than the policies toward any other country in the region—with exception of Israel, of course. Relations between the US and Iran have historically been one in which the US can only be seen as willing a level of blindness to the issue of nationalism among Arab countries and an utter disrespect toward Islam itself. Many have called the invasion of Iraq a war over oil, and while that accusation has a certain amount of truth within it, it is obviously much more complex than merely gaining control of the production of oil itself. Following the Iranian Prime Minister’s decision to nationalize his country’s oil industry in 1951, the US response was swift, immediate and unfortunately misguided: the US backed the Shah and called on him to remove the Prime Minister from office. That this was misguided is obvious from the fact that the US seemed to think Iranians would quickly fall in line behind the Shah with their support. Instead he was forced into exile (Fellure 2005). Once the US was able to orchestrate his return to despotic power, he was all but completely tainted as a political puppet of the US in the eyes of most Arabs. His oppressive approach to governing—not completely unlike that of his neighbor Saddam Hussein—was partially responsible for his being overthrown and replaced with the militantly fundamentalist Ayatollah Khomeini. A fundamentalist Muslim like Khomeini taking over the leadership of Iran was the last thing that a more secular Islamic leader like Iraq’s Saddam Hussein wanted. While many labor under the delusion that all Muslims are alike, the fact is that Saddam and Osama Bin Laden had as much in common as Saddam and Khomeini. Bin Laden and Khomeini both spring from the same part of Islamic fundamentalist belief and just as there was never any real evidence to suggest that Saddam had any part in the 9/11 attacks, so was Saddam not inclined to take a fundamentalist Muslim sitting in a position of power right next to him lightly; therefore Saddam Hussein’s decision to launch an all out invasion of Iran. Everything was going fine from the American point of view until 1982 when Saddam began having trouble fending off Iran; at that point the US unofficially back away from its neutral position regarding the war by selling chemical and biological weapons to Saddam. The US also provided protection for Iraqi oil tankers (Fellure 2005). Backing the most secular Arab leader in the region may not have won the US many admirers, but what happened shortly after may very qualify as an even bigger mistake than backing the Mujahadeen. Although Pres. Ronald Reagan went to his grave denying he had any part in the program, it was eventually revealed that the US had been selling weapons to Iran at the same time they were selling weapons to Iraq. This became a scandal known as the Iran-Contra affair, but the lasting legacy appears to have gone well past a mere Presidential scandal and Congressional hearings (Coll 2004). The fact that the US was engaging in under the table double dealing no doubt has contributed in a major way to the utter distrust that many Arabs feel toward America. From their point of view it was a case of a country actually selling weapons to another country that a mere few years before had been holding hundreds of their citizens hostage. In a region dominated by a strict adherence to the moral code outlined in the Koran, this kind of behavior can only appear to be the ultimate in godless opportunism. Then combine that with the fact that the US invaded Iraq a mere few years after serving to build that country’s military might. This atmosphere of distrust of America’s motives even when do something in the interests of Arabs no doubt led to the attacks on 9/11. It has become really nothing more than a cliché to suggest that the attacks of September 11, 2001 forever changed the world, and especially America. What has not yet become part of that cliché, however, is how much that change can be attributed to the hijackers themselves and how much can be attributed to the American leaders in office a the time. It is also not yet a cliché to suggest that the greatest lesson learned so far by those in power is not how to contain terrorism, or how to make sure it never happens again, but is rather how to manipulate the fear of another attack for political gain at the expense of basic civil liberties. The opening cannon in the war against civil rights in the name of enforcing security was a document that came to be known—some would suggest ironically—as the Patriot Act. In the days and weeks following 9/11 the American people would witness their last large scale agreement on a single issue; that something needed to be done to protect us from it ever happening again. That something turned out to be a piece of legislation passed nearly unanimously and welcomed by a large segment of the American population; though it was significantly less large than those who had earlier cried out for some kind of protection (Nichols 2005). The Patriot Act passed in the Senate with only one vote against, that of Sen. Russell Feingold. Why would a Senator vote against steps to make the country safer from terrorists? Because he had been of the few Senators to actually read the bill before voting on it and he saw recognized that the bill contained certain provisions that, while possibly effective in combating terrorism, were also undeniably un-American restrictions the very same liberties that our own founding fathers—who would have been characterized as terrorists by many people today—had fought so hard to win (Nichols 2005). Among those provisions that made Sen. Feingold uneasy were that the federal government would now be legally permitted to widely expand the scope of pre-existing laws regarding telephone and internet surveillance; that laws against the wiretapping of American citizens would be considerably loosened; that the records of a citizen’s library borrowings or video store rentals could be requested not only without their permission but without their knowledge; that confidential records related to one’s finances or medical history could be requested with only a cursory attempt at getting a warrant (Nichols 2005). What bothered many critics at the time was that the Patriot Act was passed without there being public debate or even public hearings. The scope of criticism of the Patriot Act was widened even further when it was supposedly strengthened as a result of a new definition of crime known as “domestic terrorism.” The problem is in the utter vagueness of the definition of domestic terrorism: "any action that endangers human life or is a violation of any federal or state law." Of course, critics quickly pointed out that the real problem here wasn’t the vagueness itself, but the purpose behind the vagueness. Obviously, if domestic terrorism is simply endangering human life by violating federal or state law, then the latitude for both prosecuting and investigating those crimes is enormous. The Patriot Act has since been used to justify all manner of investigations that invade the privacy and restrict the civil rights of US citizens and non-citizens alike. Many times these investigations have no precedence for being used as investigations into potential terrorist activity (Pitts 2005). The criticism of the Patriot Act isn’t just limited to the Act itself, but the entire atmosphere of justice and security that permeates the policies of the Bush White House. The President’s domestic eavesdropping program is another example of the unsettling move toward an authoritarian system in America. After all, why did the President need to conduct illegal wiretapping programs when the Patriot Act had already given him far more leeway to violate civil rights than any President in history? Sec. 206 of the Patriot Act had already given law enforcement authorities the ability to use a single authorization to cover the wiretapping of various devices. Sec. 206 for the first time allowed just one court order to cover the wiretapping of a home phone, a cell phone, and a computer (US Congress 2001). Although this could potentially be useful in hunting down hijackers, the evidence continues to leak out that it has been used on literally tens of millions of law-abiding Americans. Is there really anyone not working for the White House who believes that tens of millions of Americans have ties to terrorists? Following the investigation into iconic image associated with the 9/11 attacks—the collapses of the World Trade Center towers—it became apparent that a significant problem leading to the devastation and loss of human life was the almost utter lack of correspondence between government agencies. As a result moves were made to facilitate information sharing and the Patriot Act led the way here. Sections 203 B and D of the Patriot Act were created to make the sharing of information gathered in criminal investigations run more smoothly (US Congress 2001). As with so much in the post-911 world, this is another example of a good idea upended by faulty execution. The sharing of information that is currently taking place as a result of this legislation has resulted in the biggest and most detailed database of private information about Americans that has ever existed. Unfortunately—and inevitably—this database is peopled with millions of Americans who have absolutely no ties to Islamic terrorism at all. The problem can be traced to the absolutism that pervades American politics in the age of Bush. The database of information has no filters: any American investigated for any illegal activity is entered into the database. Law enforcement officers can enter suspects into the database without giving any explanation as to their connection to terrorist activity; and furthermore no limits exist as to the type of information that is shared. It need not relate to terrorism concerns at all. The political atmosphere based on the fear of another terrorist attack has led to such outrageous moves as suspending the basic write of habeas corpus as well as loosening the laws required to attain search warrants. Unbelievably, police now have the right to conduct a search of a citizen’s business or home without even being notified that they are under investigation. This so-called “sneak and peek” section of the Patriot Act is intended to target only those suspected of terrorist activities, but since the warrants are mandated under the domestic terrorism definition in reality anyone suspected of endangering human life while violating a federal or state law is subject to these kinds of search and seizures (US Congress 2001). Just how dangerous has American become under the provisions of the authoritarian style of government that has risen from the ashes of 9/11? Consider the case of an art teacher at NYU who fell under the suspicion of the federal government following his wife’s death. Steve Kurtz was brought in for question under the auspices of the Patriot Act due to suspicions that bioterrorist weapons could possibly be made from the ingredients found in his art supplies. While Kurtz was being held without charges his house was being searched, his computers were seized, his house was condemned and—most egregiously—police even conducted an investigation on his wife’s corpse. The result of this investigation of a suspected terrorist: his art supplies could not even actually be used to make the weapons he was suspected of creating (Gardner 2004). America in the post-9/11 world has changed, that much is true. Unfortunately, most of the noticeable changes have occurred not a direct result of the terrorist attacks on this country, but rather as a result of the decidedly political reaction by American’s leader. What is perhaps worst offense committed by American leaders is that their response was situated in the guise of patriotism, yet is founded upon one of the most anti-American documents to ever come out of the US Congress. The laws that might have stopped the terrorist attacks on 9/11 existed prior to that date; unfortunately, nobody in the Bush White House was interested in utilizing them. The Patriot may very well serve to prevent another 9/11 from taking place; just as likely, however, is that that now millions of Americans stand to have their lives turned upside down who haven’t the slightest connection with terrorists. Works Cited Coll, Steve (2004). Ghost Wars. New York, NY: Penguin Press. Girardet, E. and Walter, J. (2004). Afghanistan: Crosslines Essential Field Guides to Humanitarian and Conflict Zone. 2nd Edition –Crosslines Publication Fellure, J (2004). The Everything Middle East Book. Avon, MA: Adams Media. Gardner, K (2004 June 8). Patriot Act Hits Home. Retrieved October 18, 2006, from The Freedom of Information Center Web site: http://foi.missouri.edu/usapatriotact/pahitshome.html Nichols, John (2005 April 7). Better Safe than Sorry Patriot Act. Retrieved October 18, 2006, from Common Dreams News Center Web site: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0407-28.htm Pitts, Chip (2005 Oct. 21). A Constitutional Disaster. The Nation. Retrieved 2005 16 2006, from http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/pitts US Congress. (2001). HR 3162 (Patriot Act). Washington, DC. Read More