INTRODUCTION
All across the globe, from continent to continent and from the smallest provinces to the largest of cities, they all require some kind of strategies as to how to protect the interests of the country and its people from internal and external threats, whether it is from day to day criminal activity to invasions from conquering or oppressing forces. The United States is no exception. The United States, like all nations, needs a functional, efficient and competent homeland security strategies that will protect the American nation and its people from individual people and groups that threaten America; ideally this would translate into an America so formidable that it discourages attacks before they ever occur. At the beginning of the 21st century Bill Clinton had left office and it had been handed to the new Commander and Chief, George W. Bush; the son of previous President George Bush. Like all elections in the United States, some were pleased with the man who was elected President, others not so much. On September 11, 2001 perspectives on the new President, America’s safety and stability was changed. Representatives of the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda commandeered four commercial jets, flying two into the twin towers in New York City, another was flown into the Pentagon and the fourth did not reach its intended target, but crashed in a field after the passengers thwarted the terrorist’s agenda. The American people never saw a future where such a detailed plot could ever be successfully carried out on American soil. George W. Bush stepped up and made a new homeland security strategy that would allow America to undermine attempts in the future, will show a strong response to the death and destruction they caused and would take the warfare to the enemy. That said Bush’s strategies were received by mixed reviews still to this day. While Bush’s policies remained debated among many Americans, his response to 9/11 needed to be strong, succinct and intimidating to the enemy; this is exactly what Bush did. His security strategies and changes would respond to the enemy and prevent the plotting of more terrorist’s attacks on the American people.
BACKGROUND
Prior to 9/11, most Americans could not imagine that scale of violence could ever happen to Americans in their homeland. War, weapons and terrorism were always conducted far away and overseas, as with the previous battles in Desert Storm. America knew that there were nations and organizations that opposed the United States for political and social reasons, but America as a whole never thought that that hatred could lead to an attack within America’s borders. After 9/11 this would all change, as explained by M.P. Leffler in the article “9/11 in Retrospect: George W. Bush's Grand Strategy, Reconsidered,” for “Foreign Affairs.” This is not an exaggeration, but a fact. For the first time Americans did not feel safe in public places within their own borders. When the first plane hit the first tower on 9/11 people thought it to be a terrible accident. However, when the second plane hit the second tower all of America knew it was no accident. Soon it would be public knowledge that there were four planes total involved. This was not a spur of the moment attack, but one well plotted, premeditated and highly coordinated act of war. Americans were angry, Americans were scared and they were in shock at the death toll, which included all of the passengers on all four jets, all the people caught in the explosions and many first responds, like fire fighters, who were lost during the rescue efforts. George W. Bush shared the shock, anger and fear of the American people and was amply prepared to respond to these acts quickly, decisively and without apology. He wanted to reform America’s homeland security to prevent anything like 9/11 from ever happening again; new strategies needed to be implemented in response to the new era of terrorism against the American people.
DISCUSSION
President Bush’s plan was to develop a strategy that allowed greater defenses but, also, encourages proactive actions against the enemy as well. J. Sandler, in the article for the Journal of Peace Research, in 2011, titled “The Analytical Study Of Terrorism Taking Stock,” discusses how Bush’s goals were likely to bring comfort and support to the American people, but would also make a point to Al-Qaeda, or any other groups like them, both domestically or internationally, that America will respond and when they do it will be with force. Showing a strong front was essential and that it exactly what President Bush did. As explained in the 2004 article, by M.J. Landau, S. Solomon, and their co-authors, in 2004, titled “Deliver Us From Evil: The Effects Of Mortality Salience And Reminders Of 9/11 On Support For President George W. Bush,” for the “Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,” shared the results that President Bush’s plans and conviction to the American people worked to increase Bush’s popularity, far higher than prior to 9/11. There were four major elements to Bush’s strategy that garner the most attention and debate, which personifies Bush’s intentions, the United States Patriot Act, Department of Homeland Security Act, the call for military tribunals and use of Guantanamo Bay for military prisoners and, finally, the Bush Doctrine. To understand the relevance, details and reactions of each it is best to discuss them individually.
United States Patriot Act
Passed just a month after 9/11, the U.S. Patriot Act went into affect with almost a unanimous bipartisan support. This new legislature gave the government the powers needed to conduct searchers without warrants, view private financial statements and to eavesdrop on individuals, as well as, detain and deport in secret, those who are suspected to have or intend to commit an act of terrorism, as detailed in The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, published in 2002. This freedom made it possible for the American government to take immediate actions against suspected terrorists based on the results and scrutiny of their actions, this is something that is highly beneficial in the war on terrorism in the post-9/11 environment. Not everyone supported the Act. Many felt that this kind of legislature gives the government and the President far more power than has ever been allowed previously, explains M.M. Reed in, the 2009, article “The USA Patriot Act and Academic Libraries,” for the “College & Research Libraries News.” Now doubt many believed that the government can misuse that access and because many of the actions occur in secret, it made “naysayers” suspicious. They also argue that such policies make immigrants more vulnerable and will lead to the detainment of many who are, ultimately, deemed not to be a threat. However, despite objections the U.S. Patriot Act continued to be upheld and reinstated beyond its expiration in 2005 and then again under the Obama Administration.
The Department of Homeland Security Act
This act represents the most significant of the Bush’s new strategies. Passed in 2002 the Act allowed for a Department of Homeland Security, which would unite many different agencies and many thousands of people. It implemented the color coding system of threat levels, expanded shared information, aided in training local governments how to address terrorism, established greater passenger security at airports, in depth review for people traveling from locales with high numbers of potential terrorist activity and improved the countries security in online communications (The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, 2002). Some of the complaints regarding the Act detailed how the detection and threat levels identification by the department was often inaccurate. There have been many complaints against this legislature, explains F. Johns, in “Guantánamo Bay and the Annihilation of the Exception,” in 2005, for “The European Journal of International Law.”
The Call for Military Tribunals & Use of Guantanamo Bay
In 2001 the President called for suspected and guilty terrorists to be viewed as enemy combatants, which means that they can be tried by a military tribunal. Under that heading the government has a lot more freedom to engage in coercion, to use hearsay and hold onto secret evidence (The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, 2002). Many of these terrorists’ offenders are held at Guantanamo Bay. Here these prisoners are held under top secret conditions, which were perceived by many as direct defiance of the Geneva Convention. There were, also, concerns about the coercion methods used to gain the confessions and intelligence they wanted. In 2006, these concerns were personified by the release of photos of American military abusing the prisoners in their charge. This remained a controversial point throughout Bush’s administration (Johns, 2005). So much so that when Barack Obama, won the 2008 election, he called for the closure of all such prisons, including Guantanamo Bay, halted tribunals and banned coercion used in interrogation. However, two years later he reinstated the tribunals and declared that Guantanamo Bay would be kept open. Some influential terrorist members and leaders that were held at Guantanamo Bay includes people involved with the plotting of the 9/11 attacks. President Bush’s strategies must not have been as negative as was argued by many Democrats, yet if it was not beneficial then why would President Obama, ultimately, support it? He would not, which means that Bush's measures were worthwhile security standards.
The Bush Doctrine
This term refers to certain sections of the security strategy that pertains to warfare. It would allow America to launch preemptive warfare tactics in order to prevent future terrorism and greater threat of future war (The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, 2002). For example, it provided the rationale that was needed to invade Afghanistan because they were know to harbor Al-Qaeda members and the invasion of Iraq because they may have had weapons of mass destruction, like nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry, all of which could threaten the United States. The potential for terrorism or the possible rise of anti-democratic governments around the world makes it necessary for America to fight for democracy for all, which allowed for the justification of their tactics. Granted not everyone was supportive of Bush’s strategies. Many felt that it betrayed principles that were not supported by the treaties and policies traditionally followed, as discussed in the 2003 article, “The Bush Doctrine and War with Iraq,” appearing in “Parameters,” by J. Record. War is unpleasant for everyone, but when an act of war is committed against the country and its people, how America responded would set precedent and very likely benefitted the prevention of many more terrorist attacks on American soil. Many did not support the concept of declaring and raging war against a government for what they might do in the future. All the same, the legislature passed and was implemented over the course of Bush’s Presidency and was, clearly, more productive than the alternatives, which was to do far less.
The articles reviewed on this topic cover an array of perspectives on the security strategies in question. It quickly became clear that the issue of national security and addressing terrorism is an unbelievably complex and multifaceted topic and, therefore, there are no simple or easy solutions. The research has verified that despite the issues that many Americans, both within political and general public circles, disagree with, yet most of Bush’s strategies have been maintained for the nearly a decade after he left office (Sandler, 2014). The reality is that declaring war, implementing military strikes against enemies and taking lives should never be an easy decision. However, that does not mean that the United States cannot, will not and should not make those hard decisions when the situations warrant it; the heinous and unconscionable attacks of 9/11 are an example of an event deserving of a strong, decisive and proactive responses.
Despite the homeland security measures and strategies passed by President’s before and after Bush., the reality of terrorism still has been found to threaten Americans, most recently the ISIS affiliated terrorists who attacked the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California. However, one could argue that without the strong and new measures that President Bush took to secure America may have been instrumental in preventing many lethal attacks like this from happening all the more frequently over the last decade (Record, 2003). In the end, George W. Bush may have tested limits and walked a few ethical tightropes with many American people, but his actions, his strategies and his intention was just and if may have been the best way to keep America safe, eliminate terrorism on a more global scale and protected the United States interests, both, near and abroad.
CONCLUSION
On September 1, 2001 America experienced a violation to their sense of safety, sense of control and their belief in the United States being nearly “untouchable.” They learned that this is not, and probably never was, true. George W. Bush had only been in office short time when the tragedy occurred, but he acted swiftly to let the American people know that these terrorists’ actions will not be tolerated. This is something the American people needed from their leader. Bush’s security strategies were forceful, proactive and appropriate given the environment of the time. Again, many argued against many of Bush’s plans, yet when he left office many were left intact. If they were so wrong, unethical and antithetical to the approaches of previous Presidents then why are they still relied upon as some of Americans greatest defense against terrorism and international attacks. Ultimately, national security, like all facets of modern life, is complex and requires a great deal of thought and consideration, but that consideration should never interfere with taking swift and succinct action when it is warranted. George W. Bush made the bold, but appropriate, choice as to how to secure the United States in the post-9/11 reality; his security strategies were harsh, but necessary.
REFERENCES
Johns, F. (2005). Guantánamo bay and the annihilation of the exception. European Journal of
International Law. 16(4). 613-635.
Landau, M.J., Solomon, S. & et. al. (2004). Deliver us from evil: The effects of mortality
salience and reminders of 9/11 on support for president george w. bush. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 30(9). 1136-1150.
Leffler, M.P. (2011). 9/11 in retrospect: George w. bush's grand strategy, reconsidered. Foreign
Affairs. 90(5). 33-44.
Record, J. (2003). The bush doctrine and war with iraq. Parameters. (Summer). 1-18.
Reed, M.M. (2009). The USA PATRIOT Act. College & Research Libraries News. 70(11). 646-650.
Reed, M.M. (2009). The usa patriot act and academic libraries. College & Research
Libraries News. 70(11). 646-650.
Sandler, J. (2014).The analytical study of terrorism taking stock. Journal of Peace Research.
51(2). 257-271.
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. (2002). The National Security
Strategy of the United States of America. White House. 1-35.
