The terrorist attacks on the US 10 years ago provoked a powerful reaction: the dispatch of US troops, first to Afghanistan and then to Iraq, and the creation of a sprawling new federal agency, the US Department of Homeland Security, to coordinate and supervise measures and programs aimed at protecting the US from further assaults. This expensive, intensive effort — known as the “global war on terror” — can be counted as a success, a diversion and an example.
The most important fact about the last decade is that, since Sept. 11, there has been no successful foreign terrorist attack in the US. For that, US government efforts deserve credit. No doubt a good deal of the money spent to make the US safe has been wasted. And the group that launched the initial attacks, al-Qaeda, never posed the kind of massive threat that the US’ great Cold War adversary, the Soviet Union, once did.
Still, it was clear in the wake of Sept. 11 that a small number of people, motivated by a radical form of Islam, were determined to inflict as much harm on the US and Americans as they could. Had they managed even a few more attacks similar to the ones on New York and Washington, they could have done serious damage. At worst, the US might have become a more closed, suspicious country, retreating from the openness that has been its hallmark.
Fortunately, they failed, surely in part because the US government, in cooperation with other governments, worked hard to thwart them, killing and capturing some and discouraging others. In terms both of money and bureaucratic procedures — carefully scrutinizing all airline passengers, for example — Americans may have overpaid for a decade of avoiding terrorist attacks. However, overpaying was far preferable to suffering more attacks.
The highest cost of the war on terror has come not from what the US did over the last decade, but from what it failed to do. The US’ future depends on meeting four major challenges: globalization, the revolution in information technology, the US’ rapidly growing deficits and debt, and its pattern of energy usage. Failure to deal effectively with these challenges will lower the US’ rate of economic growth, thereby blocking generational upward mobility and undercutting the basis of US global influence.
Over the past 10 years, the US has not successfully addressed these four challenges. There are several reasons for this, but prominent among them is the US’ decade-long focus on the threat of terrorism. While necessary in some form to protect the country, the war on terror as it played out has served to divert the US’ attention and resources from the problems that it must solve in order to ensure its future prosperity and power.
The most pressing of these problems is the condition of the education system, which does not adequately prepare young Americans for the jobs available in an economy transformed by globalization and information technology. Moreover, while over-investing in airport security and in nation-building in the Hindu Kush and Mesopotamia, the US under-invested in the roads, bridges, laboratories and scientists that it needs for economic growth.
To meet its major challenges, the US will have to cut major government programs on which many people rely — the two programs that affect older Americans, Social Security and Medicare, in particular — and increase revenue by raising some taxes. At the same time, the US will need to invest in domestic infrastructure and research and development, which are key to innovation and economic growth.
The formula of cutting, taxing and investing is not a popular one in the US’ current political climate, and can be implemented only through the emergence of a broadly shared sense of sacrifice and purpose. The terrorist attacks 10 years ago created just such a political climate. They produced the kind of resolve that will be required in the years ahead to address the equally important tasks that the US now faces.
In the decade to come, the US must remain vigilant in order to prevent the kind of attacks that took place on Sept. 11. However, at the same time, the US and Americans must recapture the spirit of Sept. 12 and harness it to meet the great challenges they face.
Michael Mandelbaum is professor of US foreign policy at The Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath