Has Bush administration improved Homeland security since 9/11? Why? Why not?

This essay would argue that the Bush administration has not improved homeland security since the September 11 terrorist attack. It will also be argued that the US is now more vulnerable to terrorist attack. The argument will be presented in four sections. The first section will briefly look at the September 11 attack and Bush’s response. The second section will introduce the threat of suicide attacks, a tactic used in September 11 attacks to carry out the maximum damage. The third section will look at the US’ capability to deal with catastrophic terrorism which is now a new threat to the US’ homeland security. The final section will discuss Bush’s homeland security plans and its outcomes. It will be argued that the Bush administration has not been able to improve homeland security because its responses and policies have been wrong from the start. Essentially the essay will focus on the current threat from Al-Qaeda to America’s homeland security.

The September 11 Attack and Bush’s response
The September 11 attack is known to be the biggest attack on the US homeland which shocked the nation and left them in fear and uncertainty about the future and their government (Mahan and Griset 2008, p.xiv). It is believed that the US still faces the threat of another attack most possibly by Al-Qaeda. Arguably the biggest threat to the US homeland security is terrorism and currently Al-Qaeda organization has created a fearful situation for the US in the Middle East and in the US itself. Bin Laden the leader of Al-Qaeda believes that the US wants to keep Muslims in poverty while imposing a Western culture which is deeply offensive to traditional Islam (Posen 2001, p.39). It is highly unlikely that Al-Qaeda would stop killing and opposing Americans and its allies because as Posen (2001, p.40) indicates Bin Laden views Israel as a foreign element in the Middle East which should be destroyed, also American military presence in Saudi Arabia must end. Arguably neither Israel will be destroyed nor will the US military withdraw from Saudi Arabia and this means the US faces an enemy which demands impossible things. They will kill the Americans for as long as the US does not give in to their demands (Posen 2001, p.42).

Some of the Bush’s responses to the September 11 attack were centralizing power and establishing a Homeland Security office to oversee continental defence against terrorism (La Feber 2000, p.14). In addition a new office was set up by the White House and the State Department in order to get its controlled message overseas, particularly to Islamic audiences influenced by Osama Bin Laden’s observations (La Feber 2000, p.15).

The threat of suicide terrorism to America’s homeland
Terrorists practise many types of terroristic attacks such as suicide attacks and bomb attacks, all aiming at achieving their goals, and that is forcing America and its allies out of the so called holy lands of Islam and Muslims. Suicide terrorism poses is a big threat to the US homeland security, therefore it needs more attention because it is easy to carry out and kills the maximum. Pape (2003, p.343) points out that nowadays terrorist organizations heavily rely on suicide attack in order to achieve their major political objectives. Some groups and organizations that have used this type of attack are Palestinian groups to force Israel out and Al-Qaeda to force the US to withdraw from the Saudi Arabian Peninsula (Pape 2003, p.343). Among the terrorist organizations the use of suicide attacks to achieve their goals has been increasing (Pape 2003, p.344). Pape (2003, p.344) argues that the reason is because “terrorists have learned that it pays” (Pape 2003, p.344).

The US does not face terrorism in only one place but in many places and this is another threat which the US homeland security faces. According to Pape (2003, p.346) it is because of the Bin Laden’s fatwa which calls on all Muslim anywhere in the World to kill Americans and their allies, civilians or military as according to him it is a duty for every Muslim to liberate Al-Aqsa Mosque and to force their enemies out of all the lands of Islam. The reasons for the current suicide attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan can be well explained by pointing out Pape’s argument (2003, p.344) which states that suicide terrorists attack those who are in their view occupier of a territory or have military force bases in that territory as the presence of America in Afghanistan and Iraq anger the terrorists organizations as they believe these countries belong to Muslims and America has no right to stay there.

Pape (2003, p.344) suggests that suicide terrorism could be controlled through an effective and promising way and that is to “reduce terrorist’ confidence in their ability to carry out such attacks on the target society”. Bush’s military response to suicide terrorism was not effective because according to Pape (2003, p.344) “states that face persistent suicide terrorism should recognize that neither offensive military action nor concessions alone are likely to do much good and should invest significant resources in border defenses and other means of homeland security”.

In regards to preventing suicide attacks Pape (2003, p.357) suggests that if Al-Qaeda continues suicide attacks against American homeland then the US needs to improve its domestic security. Pape (2003, p.357) points out that in the short term the US need to employ stronger security measures to control the borders in order to make it difficult for suicide terrorists to enter America. Also in the long term the US needs to reduce its dependency on Persian Gulf’s energy resources so the military could be withdrawn from the region and protect Americans from suicide attacks (Pape 2003, p.357).

America’s capability to deal with the threat of catastrophic terrorism and catastrophic events

Nowadays, catastrophic terrorism is a huge threat to the US, although it has not happened yet. Carter (2001, p.6) points out that before George Bush took office, he and his administration claimed that they would formulate their strategy around two issues which were the collapse of Moscow’s power and the growth of Beijing’s military and economic might “in a self-proclaimed return to big power realism” (Carter 2001, p.6). However after the September 11 attack catastrophic terrorism has dominated the Bush administration’s agenda (Carter 2001, p.6).

In regards to the ability of Americans to deal with catastrophic terrorism Carter (2001, p.18) believe that the American society for some reasons such as is being large and open, having complex and interconnected infrastructure, valuing free movement, free speech and privacy, is very weak in the battle against catastrophic terrorism. Posen (2001, p.41) confirms the US vulnerability to terrorism by pointing out that the US has not successfully policed its borders and transferring drugs, illegal immigrants, cash, guns and stolen cars is easy and anyone with money and patience can obtain explosives and other dangerous materials in the US. Carter (2001, p.18) suggests that the US should set up programs to strengthen its homeland security through employing technology not inside government, but in universities and private companies.

The 2005 Hurricane Katrina proved that the US is not yet prepared to deal with catastrophic events, including terrorist attacks as there were evidence of poor implementation of emergency plans, poor communication, and poor decision processes (Waugh 2008, p.11). All these contribute to the fact that Bush has not been able to improve Homeland Security after the September 11 attack.

Bush’s Administration and the US’ Homeland Security
In America so far four approaches have been recommended to manage the mission of homeland security and they are “the command and control approach of the Clinton administration, the lead agency approach, the establishment of Department of Homeland Security, and the appointment of a White House coordinator or ‘czar’” (Carter 2001, p.10). The Bush administration has focused on the last approach only, however like other three approaches it not sufficient on its own (Carter 2001, p.10).

The homeland security under the Bush’s administration has not been improved because as Carter (2001, p.22) points out America’s current capabilities to respond to catastrophic terrorism is not sufficient to protect Americans or the international order from many major new challenges. In agreement Noam Chomsky, a writer and critic of America’s policies in an interview with Schivone (2008, p.16), asserted that the US is very vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Chomsky criticizes Bush for not being able to improve security and failing to act according to the recommendations forwarded by the government commission after September 11 which suggested that the US-Canada borders need to be controlled (Schivone 2008, p.16). According to Chomsky, the Bush administration instead fortified the Mexican border which was not a serious source of possible terrorism (Schivone 2008, p.16). Chomsky argues that the Bush administration programs have not been designed to reduce terror but to increase terror as the Iraq invasion increased terror about seven fold (Schivone 2008, p.17). Iran’s nuclear program can be best explained by the motion that the US invasion of Iraq sent an indirect message to other countries. The message according to Chomsky was that ‘if you don’t obey what the US demands, they can invade you, so you better develop a deterrent’ (Schivone 2008, p.17).

In regards to the Bush’s ability to defeat terrorism and protect the US homeland security Abdel Bari Atwan who is the author and editor of the London-based Arabic daily newspaper Al-Quds Al Arabia states that “president Bush is not ending terrorism nor is he weakening it”, “rather Al-Qaeda now has powerfully developed into more of an ideology than an organization” (Schivone 2008, p.16). According to the 2007 National Strategy for Homeland Security (White House 2007, p.3), the event of Hurricane Katrina and its massive destruction and suffering reminded the Americans that terrorism is not the only big and fearful threat which they face, but nature can also be a huge threat to America’s homeland security. Such event and its consequences makes the US more vulnerable to attack as it is stated in the White House national strategy for homeland security (2007, p.3).

In the National Strategy for Homeland Security (White House 2007, p.9) it is pointed out that America “faces complex and dynamic threats from terrorism” as well as other threats such as natural disasters, accidents, and other hazards. It also stresses Al-Qaeda’s current ability to strike the homeland despite being disrupted and constrained after the September 11 attack and points out that “the United States faces a persistent and evolving terrorist threat” (White House 2007, p.9). Al-Qaeda is now in Pakistan and it has maintained and protected its leadership, therefore the possibility of another attack on America is still strong as they are regenerating in Pakistan’s Tribal areas (White House 2007, p.9). The US does not only face Al-Qaeda but other terrorist groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and they might consider attacking America’s homeland if they see the US a direct threat on them or their principle sponsor Iran (White House 2007, p.9).

The vulnerability of the US to another attack from Al-Qaeda organization has also been stressed by the National Intelligence Council as it points out that the US homeland face “a persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next three years” and the main threat comes from Al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups (Martin 2008, p.290). The US is also vulnerable to the emergence of homegrown terrorists within its borders and arresting a small number of violent Islamic extremists indicates that there is the possibility that “others in the Homeland may become sufficiently radicalized to view the use of violence within the United States” (White House 2007, p.9).

Al-Qaeda still has the three capabilities which were critical to the success of September 11 attack and these are “the ability to identify a key vulnerability or gap in the defenses of its principle enemy…, the effective use of deception on board the four hijacked aircraft where the passengers and crew were deliberately lulled into believing that if they behaved and cooperated as they were told … they would not be harmed” and in the attack “suicide attack was employed to ensure the attack’s success” (Hoffman 2003, p.12). The biggest danger which the US faces comes from its support for Israel (Mearsheimer and Walt 2006, p.3). The US support for Israel has “inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized US security” (Mearsheimer and Walt 2006, p.1). US support for Israel is one of the sources of the rise of Anti-Americanism. According to Nye (2004) in recent years Anti-Americanism has increased and as a result the United States’ soft power has declined. In agreement Lundberg (2008, p.8) points out that instead of strengthening the US soft power, the Bush 43 administrations have weakened the US soft power “through a freeloader climate change posture, inconsistent nuclear non-proliferation policies, the occupation of Iraq …” (Lundberg, 2008, p.8).

Overall the Bush administration has not been able to improve homeland security due to its inappropriate policies and responses to the September 11 attack and the Hurricane Katrina. The war on Iraq and Afghanistan increased terrorism and as a result the US is now more vulnerable to terrorist threat than before. The threat from Al-Qaeda is now more serious as the organization is not in Pakistan and it tries to regenerate to launch more attacks on America and its Allies. Under the Bush administration America’s soft power has weakened and Anti-Americanism has increased. There still are huge issues in America which have not been controlled such as border security which is used to transfer drugs, explosive materials, illegal immigrants and more.


Reference:

Carter, A.B 2001, “The Architecture of Government in the Face of Terrorism.” International Security, 26 (3) Winter 2001-2002, viewed 8 June 2008,
.

Hoffman, B 2003, Al Qaeda, trends in terrorism, and future potentialities: An assessment”, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Vol 26, No.6, November 2003, viewed 8 June 2008, .

La Feber, W 2000, The Post September 11 Debate Over Empire, Globalisation, and Fragmentation”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol 117, No.1, Spring 2002.

Lundberg, D 2008, Bush Administration Reaganism and US primacy, University of South Australia, Adelaide.

Mahan, S & Grist, P 2008, Terrorism in Perspective, 2nd edition, Sage Publications, Los Angles.

Martin, G 2008, Essentials of Terrorism: Concepts and Controversies, Sage Publications, Lose Angles.

Mearsheimer, J.J & Walt, S.M 2006, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Working Paper, Harvard University and University of Chicago.

Nye, J.S 2004, The Decline of America’s Soft Power: Why Washington Should Worry, foreign Affairs. Vol 83, No.3, May/June 2004.

Pape, R.A 2003, The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, American Political Science Review, 97 (3) (Aug., 2003), viewed 5 June 2008,
.

Posen, B.R 2001, The Struggle against Terrorism: Grand Strategy, Strategy, and Tactics, International Security, Vol 26, No.3, Winter 2001-2002, viewed 8 June 2008,
.

Schivone, G.M 2008, United Sates of Insecurity, Monthly Review, Vol 60, No.1, May 2008.

Waugh, W 2008, The Political Costs of Failure in the Katrina and Rita Disasters, The ANNALS of The American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol 604, March 2008.

White House, National Strategy for Homeland Security, White House, Washington, DC, October 2007, viewed 10 June 2008,
.