Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Former top US official regrets Iraq becoming 'magnet' for terrorism
If Michael Chertoff has one regret from his tenure as US secretary of Homeland Security (2005-2009), it's Iraq. He says the US-led war there not only distracted from Afghanistan, but the unclear mission and lack of post-war planning ultimately turned Iraq into "a magnet for all kinds of attacks on Americans, that absorbed more resources, more attention, and more patients." Watch his interview with Ian Bremmer on this episode of GZERO World.
Watch the episode: Is America Safer Since 9/11?
- Is America safer since 9/11? - GZERO Media ›
- Is the US safer from terrorism 20 years after 9/11? - GZERO Media ›
- 9/11 in America - GZERO Media ›
- Former US Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff discusses counterterrorism - GZERO Media ›
- Colin Powell's legacy - GZERO Media ›
- 20 years since the Iraq War: Lessons learned, questions raised | Ian Bremmer explains - GZERO Media ›
- From Iraq to Ukraine: Reflections on "wars of choice" - GZERO Media ›
- The cost of war: Senator Tammy Duckworth on what we owe veterans - GZERO Media ›
Is America safer since 9/11?
20 years have passed since 9/11, but is the US any safer? As the Taliban regains control in Afghanistan, was the War on Terror a failure or has it kept America safe from harm? And how did US allies feel as the last American planes left Kabul? On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer speaks to two people who have had a hand in crafting global policy since the towers fell: Michael Chertoff, who served as Secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security under President George Bush; and Rory Stewart, who worked extensively in Afghanistan in his role as UK Secretary of State for International Development and beyond.
- 20 years since 9/11 attacks - GZERO Media ›
- Farewell to the flip phone: How media has changed since 9/11 ... ›
- The alternative versions of 9/11 - GZERO Media ›
- Enter China, exit policeman: How the world has changed since 9/11 ... ›
- The Graphic Truth: The cost of America's post-9/11 wars - GZERO ... ›
- Former top US official regrets Iraq becoming 'magnet' for terrorism - GZERO Media ›
- Former US Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff discusses counterterrorism - GZERO Media ›
9/11 in America
The great Spalding Gray once wrote that he had fled his native New England for Manhattan because he wanted to live on an "island off the coast of America," where human nature was king, and everyone exuded character and had big attitude." I've now lived in New York City for 35 years, and I know what he meant. Manhattanites are Americans, without doubt, but they're suspicious of patriotic displays, and they like to keep the rest of their country at arm's length.
But 9/11 was different. All of us in the city on September 11, 2001, remember that day's clear blue sky, the time it took to understand and absorb the shock of what was happening at the World Trade Center that morning, and then the horror unfolding around us. But the response of ordinary New Yorkers was unlike anything seen in this city since the end of World War II.
Within hours of the twin towers' collapse, lower Manhattan was closed to all but first responders, city officials, and reporters. The compulsion of many New Yorkers to do something, anything, that might help someone drove thousands down the island's West Side Highway on foot to come as close to the wreckage as we were allowed, to pass bottles of water to anyone who needed one – and to cheer for the exhausted and traumatized police and firefighters passing in both directions through the barricades in cars and trucks.
New Yorkers of every description saluted, shouted their gratitude, and blew kisses to police. That's not something you see every day. That's not something you ever see. I saw it, and I won't forget it.
A few weeks later, I was in the back of a taxi heading home from a friend's place downtown, a 6.7-mile ride that covered 105 city blocks. I lost count of the American flags I saw in apartment and shop windows across our "island off the coast of America."
That surge of patriotic pride and good feeling swept the nation. In the weeks after the attacks, President George W. Bush enjoyed a 90-percent approval rating, the highest ever recorded by Gallup. Even those who would never vote for Bush supported him in that moment of trauma. It was a rare moment of American unity.
It didn't last. The War on Terror that followed continues to divide America, as we saw again last month during the chaotic exit from Afghanistan. But there was a moment after 9/11 when it felt like all Americans were living in the same country. Even us arrogant New Yorkers.
A lot has changed in 20 years. American politics, always rancorous, has grown dark and increasingly bitter.
On Saturday, as we mark the 20-year anniversary of that shocking, humbling day, we should consider this question: How would Americans respond if the nation were attacked again tomorrow? Would we, could we, unify, even for a few weeks? Or would the culture-war-driven political dysfunction that has dominated American politics in recent years divide our national response?
If so, Americans have lost much more than we realize.
Political transformation 20 years after 9/11
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, shares insights on US politics:
Two decades later, in what ways has 9/11 shaped US politics?
Well, I think if you can go back in time from today to late 2001 and early 2002, people then would be surprised to learn three things. The first is that the Taliban were back in charge of Afghanistan. The second is that Iraq can transition to a relatively stable democracy. And the third is that after 9/11, there were no future foreign-planned major terrorist attacks against the United States. This last piece of information will particularly surprise people, and they'd also be surprised to learn that the major threats facing the US were largely domestic political instability and a rising geopolitical conflict with China, which had just become an open trading partner of the US just before the 9/11 attacks happened.
As a result, Americans have largely moved on from 9/11 and while huge majorities think that September 11th attacks were the major historical event of their lifetimes, it's having a smaller political impact in the US than either the aftermath of the global financial crisis or the election of President Donald Trump. The most visible impact from 9/11 has probably been the security theater that Americans have come to live with at airports and other public venues. And Americans still haven't resolved issues over acceptable levels of government surveillance into their private matters, even while they've given up more control of their privacy to tech companies that didn't really exist anywhere close to their current form in the year 2000.
Probably the biggest change between then and now is how the US might respond to a future terrorist attack. It's important to remember that George W. Bush was a deeply polarizing figure coming out of the 2000 election, which was very, very close. Decided by fewer than 800 votes in the state of Florida and ultimately, settled by the Supreme Court. Since that time, most policy issues are seen through a much more deeply polarized lens, and this wasn't really the case in 2001. As a result, you had enormous support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in Congress, which took many years for members of Congress to start to repudiate as they caught up with the polarization in the public. Today, you've got much more political outsiders in Congress who might take a different view around rallying 'round the flag to fight a war in a foreign land, and you also have a lot more diverse voices in the media, which would probably complicate efforts to have a cohesive national response to a terrorist attack like this.
So, in many ways, it's surprising how little an effect 9/11 has had 20 years on now that the war in Afghanistan has ended. Obviously, that's different for military families and others who have sacrificed over the years in order to keep America safe, but today's political landscape has really transformed from what it was in the days after the attack.
Enter China, exit policeman: How the world has changed since 9/11
The world has changed dramatically since the terrorist attacks on New York And Washington on September 11, 2001. Pop culture has evolved — significantly — as have the ways we eat, communicate, work, and get our information about the world.
Geopolitically, the past two decades have been transformative, and these developments have impacted how many observers reflect on the post-9/11 era.
Here are three examples of big geopolitical shifts over the past two decades, and how they may influence our understanding of global events today.
China got big. In 2001, China wasn't even a member of the World Trade Organization, and it was still considered a developing country that was largely closed off from the global economy. In 2001, China recorded a GDP per capita of $1,053 compared to $10,500 in 2020.
Today, China's leaders speak of "a new era" in which China will move "closer to center stage" in world affairs. President Xi Jinping now calls for a "Chinese solution" for the world's problems.
In 2001, China's geopolitical interests were not strictly defined in opposition to the US' (and vice versa). In the aftermath of 9/11, the former leader of China's Communist Party, President Jiang Zemin, expressed some sympathy with the US and supported a call for action at the United Nations Security Council. He also backed an anti-terrorism resolution calling for the ousting of the Taliban that had provided safe haven for al-Qaeda.
That spirit of cooperation is a far cry from what we've seen in recent years, when Beijing, a veto-wielding member of the UNSC, has used its power to thwart US-driven resolutions. When it comes to Afghanistan, China says it is open to recognizing the Taliban and is now working against US strategic interests in the region.
The US is no longer willing to be the world's policeman. In September 2001, the United States was at the height of its post-Cold War power. America was the unrivaled global hegemon, and despite arguments over how and whether to intervene in African conflicts and the former Yugoslavia, there was more domestic consensus across the political spectrum about how and when the US should deploy that power, particularly after the 9/11 attacks. Just one member of the US Congress, California Democrat Barbara Lee, voted against the war in Afghanistan.
American politics have always been acrimonious, yet in the immediate post-9/11 era, there was more bipartisan consensus about what the US mission in Afghanistan should be — and less opposition to the idea that America had a broader "responsibility to lead" to advance American political values. That's no longer the case. As Ian Bremmer recently pointed out, if there's anything that Democrats and Republicans agree on today — and there isn't much — it's that the US should withdraw from Afghanistan. Part of the reason for that, Bremmer explains, is that lawmakers — and American voters — no longer want to be "the promoter of common values."
In October 2001, 80 percent of Americans supported a ground invasion in Afghanistan to get the bad guys who wreaked havoc on New York City. Today, by contrast, there is very little appetite to send American troops to far-flung conflict zones while Americans at home grapple with COVID recovery, crime and other domestic political priorities. The recent killing of 13 US service members amid the hasty US withdrawal from Afghanistan is likely to reinforce that stance. That's not to say that the US is pursuing an isolationist foreign policy — far from it. But American assumptions about the role the US should play in the world have certainly changed.
What is a war anyway? Twenty years ago, a military offensive — a boots-on-the-ground intervention — was the primary way for the US to exert maximum pressure on an adversary. But the nature of war and combat has evolved dramatically over the past two decades. State-of-the-art pilotless aircrafts and "killer drones" can be used in surveillance missions and war, and from an army's perspective, can provide a more precise and less costly alternative to traditional aerial missions. Most militaries, including NATO, are looking at how to use technology to avoid casualties without compromising the mission's objectives.
The United States has been developing its drone tech for some time, but in recent years, China too has been increasingly focused on upping its drone game: China's state-run Aviation Industry Corps has sold advanced drone tech to at least 16 countries over the past decade, and is also building a drone factory in Saudi Arabia, the first in the region.
China, for its part, has pushed back on accusations that its drone production is fueling a new arms race, but the Pentagon is certainly on edge because more countries are developing drone technologies that are being used in war-like scenarios, sometimes by bad actors. (Azerbaijan used Turkish-supplied drones against Armenia in last year's conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, while the Kremlin has agreed to send drones to Myanmar's oppressive military junta.)
And future wars are more likely to be fought mainly with cyber-weapons than with air power projected by aircraft carriers. In fact, cyberspace is an increasingly dangerous arena for conflict. That's true not only for war, but for acts of terrorism — including the next 9/11.
- 20 years since 9/11 attacks - GZERO Media ›
- The Graphic Truth: The cost of America's post-9/11 wars - GZERO ... ›
- Farewell to the flip phone: How media has changed since 9/11 ... ›
- Hard Numbers: 9/11's enduring toll - GZERO Media ›
- 9/11 and after: A personal reminiscence from inside the machine ... ›
- The alternative versions of 9/11 - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: A safer America 20 years after 9/11? Michael Chertoff and Rory Stewart discuss - GZERO Media ›
Is the US safer from terrorism 20 years after 9/11?
For Michael Chertoff, former US secretary of Homeland Security from 2005 to 2009, the fact that America has not experienced a single attack by foreign terrorists since 9/11 proves that the US was "successful" in its strategy to prevent terrorism. That "was not an accident and there was a deterrent effect to be honest — had we been lax, more would have tried." Chertoff pushes back against the notion that the US government wasn't transparent enough about the intelligence it was collecting, and credits those efforts with foiling the plot to blow up airplanes mid-air from Heathrow to the US in 2006. Watch his interview with Ian Bremmer on this episode of GZERO World.
Did the War on Terror make the US safer?
For former US Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), 20 years after 9/11 the War on Terror has made the US and the world safer in some ways, but less safe in others. She shares her thoughts in an interview with Ian Bremmer, during which Harman also discusses why the US currently lacks a coherent national security strategy — and in fact hasn't had one since the end of the Cold War.