20 Years on from 9/11

On September 11^th 2001, the world stopped and turned to their radio or TV to learn of a terrorist attack which shook the foundations of what America held to be true. 19 men, armed only with box cutters, demonstrated to America that it is not untouchable, and new and unknown threats lay just beyond the horizon.

 

Memorial Site of 9/11  -   Photo Drew Angerer

20 years later, almost to the date, the world once again tuned in to see a nation’s military response, one that has left a path of destruction and bloodshed, come to a confusing and inconclusive end. Much like the film ‘Uncut Gems’, you are left feeling utterly drained and no more informed about the motives than at the start, and with a sense that the last 2 hours, or 20 years, have been for absolutely nothing.

 

So what has changed in the last 20 years? Technology, for one, has improved exponentially. Not only does this mean a fancy new iPhone for us, but it also means expensive and extravagant new weapon systems for the military. A key one being that of the unmanned aerial vehicle (drone). The ability of enhanced surveillance, as well as the allure of the ‘surgical strike’ – allowing the capacity to put ‘warheads on foreheads’ (as coined by Chamayou) – has meant that these weapons have become a staple in the American fight against terrorism. Such weaponry however, has meant the fight itself has also changed, what started as a more typical example of conflict with ‘boots on the ground’ fighting against a named enemy has now shifted into a remote war against unnamed, uncontrolled individuals who seek nothing but purity and to challenge the perpetuating Western hegemony with America at the helm.

 

It seems that 20 years and four Presidents however, is not enough to bring a sense of order and stability to the region of Afghanistan and surrounding areas in the Middle East. Perhaps then, it is better to look to the similarities and themes which run through these Presidencies; after all, to solve the problem, you first have to find the root of the source.

 

Whilst the Presidents may have changed, the tactics and ignorance to the rule of law has not. Each President has left their own mark on the War on Terror. Bush’s detention policy, with scandals such as Abu Ghraib Prison, demonstrates a distinct lack of care towards the questions of prisoners of war – despite there being an established legal ruling in the case of Hamden v. Rumsfeld, Bush continued with the principle of capturing and indefinitely detaining in inhumane conditions any individual who was considered to be even remotely suspicious.

 

As America then turned to Obama, who made emotive promises of making America a ‘beacon’ to other nations with regards to the rule of law, he managed to change a lot without actually changing anything. Desperate to depart from the Bush legacy, he moved away from detainment and ‘boots on the ground’ – but in the empty space left by the removal of such policies, he filled it with targeted killings. In doing so, Obama further retreated the American War on Terror into the shadows, placing an increased level of responsibility on the CIA so as to appear transparent with the actions of the military without actually having to reveal anything at all. Weekly meetings, with the appropriate name of ‘Terror Tuesdays’, became standard practice for the Obama administration, where suspicious individuals were picked off a list and targeted in a drone strike. Thus effectively following the same path as Bush, targeting any individual who fit a standard set by the U.S and is treated in a manner which has been deemed acceptable by the U.S ad the U.S only. Same principle, different tactic.

 

What was done more subtly by Obama, was only heightened and committed more openly by Trump. During his Presidency, there was little to no effort made to follow the rule of law. With acts such as the targeting of Iranian General Soleimani, despite no immediate threat, as well as comments like “you have to take out their families”, Trump made it clear that he had thrown the rule book out the window. This was only made worse by the fact that he got away with it.

 

A 20 year conflict therefore, with no clear conclusion and consequences branching out in every direction, is not surprising when it is conducted by a state whose leaders are happy to act in any manner they so wish. Biden has already set a tone of how the next Presidency will pan out – as he may have brought the troops home, but the bombs from the drones continue to fall; only this time they strike in densely populated areas and on the basis of very inconclusive evidence.

 

In his Presidential campaign, Biden stated “these forever wars have to end. I support drawing down the troops. But here’s the problem, we still have to worry about terrorism.” With the Taliban now in power in Afghanistan and ISIS already committing acts of atrocity, Biden’s response has been a drone strike and a restating of the promise made by every President since George W Bush: “We will hunt you down and make you pay,” emphasizing how the dichotomy of the ‘problem of terrorism’ and the withdrawal from the ‘forever wars’, remains unanswered, in no small part a result of the ‘neither/nor’ and changing interpretations of the rule of law. The ‘pick and mix’ approach of the American governments has worked effectively to obscure the devastating financial and human cost of the War on Terror.

 

20 years of conflict, an ever increasing death rate, weakening stability and billions of dollars, only to feel that America is right back where it started. Therefore we must take a page out of Bartlett’s book and ask: “What’s next?”