Some have claimed that in 'completely transforming' the international environment, September 11 inaugurated 'the start of a new era in American strategic thinking.' 4 It has been argued that the threat of another devastating terror attack, one that could involve weapons of mass destruction, necessitated a nearly-fundamental revision of American grand strategy the 'war on nuclear terrorism' could become comparable to the Cold War 5. Part I: The Immediate Elevation of Terrorism Concerns Importantly, although a wide range of means – diplomatic, political, economic – was required to wage the War on Terror, traditional military means were prioritized by the Bush administration in the wake of September 11. This meant that the ways implemented to counter the stateless threat - like preventive war and forcible regime change - principally targeted states linked to terrorism. The newly-emergent threat of terrorism was grafted onto the existing state-centric strategy, which remained preoccupied with the post-Cold War belief that America’s security interests are best served with the United States retaining unrivaled military force and preventing the emergence of rival state competitors. I argue that the non-state character of the organization that perpetrated the September 11 attacks precipitated a revision of the threat and, by extension, the ends of American strategy, which remained mostly state-centric in its focus. Although the longer-term effects of any historical event are consistently more difficult to determine, I search forĬontinuity and change in the strategic practice of subsequent administrations. Second, I examine the novel aspects in the Bush administration’s strategic response to September 11, which I analyze with reference to three basic concepts: preventive war, forcible regime change, and deterrence. While it was modified, the strategy did not become terrorism-centric, and it remained focused on the post-Cold War desire to maintain American global supremacy vis-à-vis rival states.

Diplomatic strategy, in turn, could emphasize 'unilateralism,' defined as the tendency by the United States to act alone, without consulting other countries or international organizations, or 'multilateralism,' defined as the tendency to seek cooperation with other countries.įirst, I scrutinize the immediate impact of September 11 on the Bush administration while arguing that the terrorist attacks did not mark a 'watershed' moment in America’s strategic practice. Without being limited to wartime decision-making or military planning, the definition also includes other domains of policy, such as the conduct of diplomacy. In the broadest possible sense, the so-called 'grand' strategy involves the act of synchronizing the means and the ends at the highest levels of government 3. 'Strategy' is defined here as the deliberate planning and promulgation of policies designed to harness the country’s political, military, diplomatic, and economic resources towards the fulfillment of its national interest 2. Bush and committed the United States to a generational conflict that lasts to thisĭay, in various forms, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere. Most significantly, the emergence of the terrorist threat transformed the presidency of George W. The emergence of the so-called 'War on Terror' - the American-led global counterterrorism campaign -Īnd the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq allow scholars to perceive September 11 as a transformational event that has generated notable alterations in the American government’s practice of strategy, both in the immediate and the long term. Some dissenters stated that they were 'skepticalthat this a great rupture in the fabric of history.' 1 While the magnitude of change can be debated, significant shifts in world affairs did result from the terrorist attacks against the United States. The United States was no longer invulnerable, its power no longer invincible. In the aftermath of September 11 commentators from across the American political spectrum argued that 'everything had changed,' that the terrorist attacks marked a 'watershed' event of historical significance, comparable to the Pearl Harbor attack and the end of the Cold War.

A watershed moment meaning