Laurie Garrett, senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations, explores the lasting impact of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the anthrax attacks that followed on disaster preparedness and health policy in the United States. Garrett argues that "all our readiness response depends on well-funded police, well-funded fire departments, well-funded hospitals, well-funded public health infrastructures, and precisely the opposite is where we are going right now." Garrett cautions that U.S. preparedness for a major terrorist attack may be decreasing. "As budgets are being cut at the federal level, the state level, and the local level, we're actually less ready than we were in 2001," Garrett says.
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press indicates that the American public generally views the government's response to terrorism favorably, yet fewer than half of those surveyed believe that government policies have prevented another major attack on the United States.
Within days of the 9/11 attacks, Congress authorized U.S. military and intelligence agencies to kill and detain terrorists. It is time to revise that authority on matters like detentions and drone attacks, says CFR's John B. Bellinger III.
Richard N. Haass argues that 9/11 was a terrible tragedy by any measure, but it was not a historical turning point that heralded a new era of international relations in which terrorists with a global agenda prevailed, or in which such spectacular terrorist attacks became commonplace.
While U.S. efforts to forge a better relationship with the Muslim world are important, it will also take leadership within that world to challenge the myths that lead to anger and disapproval toward the United States.
The payoff of huge investments in security precautions mean better intelligence collection, surveillance, and other security infrastructure that combine to make the likelihood of an al-Qaeda attack today very slim.
A near absence of terrorist incidents in the United States since 9/11 points to the success of the Bush administration's counterterrorism measures that once stirred controversy but now have bipartisan acceptance, writes CFR's Max Boot
U.S. homeland security is unquestionably safer a decade after 9/11 and will remain so if the country pursues a robust, yet proportional, counterterrorism effort abroad, writes CFR's Richard Falkenrath.
Guantanamo Bay, where hundreds of terror suspects have been detained since 9/11, has underscored the need for flexibility and careful balancing in detainee policy to confront twenty-first-century threats, writes CFR's Matthew Waxman.
Drones have become a cost-effective default tactic for dealing with potential terrorist threats since 9/11, but this policy could lead to drone strikes by other countries as well as pushback from targeted states, says CFR's Micah Zenko.
This video is part of a special Council on Foreign Relations series that explores how 9/11 changed international relations and U.S. foreign policy. In this video, Stewart M. Patrick, senior fellow and director of the International Institutions and Global Governance Program at the Council on Foreign Relations, identifies the successes and lasting challenges in the international community's response to global terrorism since the attacks of September 11, 2001. "The world has made a lot of progress," says Patrick, "but it still has quite a bit of a ways to go to achieve real consensus and real solidarity in this fight."
This video is part of a special Council on Foreign Relations series that explores how 9/11 changed international relations and U.S. foreign policy. In this video, Steven Cook, Hasib J. Sabbagh Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations discusses how the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 transformed the United States' Middle East policy. Cook argues the attacks led to the conclusion that "authoritarian stability -- that is, relying on authoritarian leaders in the region to help create a political order that made it relatively easier for the United States to pursue its interests in the region -- was perhaps no longer appropriate." Instead, U.S. policy has been devoted from that point on to "fostering democratic change in the Middle East."
This video is part of a special Council on Foreign Relations series that explores how 9/11 changed international relations and U.S. foreign policy. In this video, Ed Husain, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, who was previously a member and strategist for radical Islamist organizations in London discusses the impact of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on Islamist extremism as well as global counter-terrorism efforts. "The most important thing that happened after 9/11," says Husain, "is not just the so-called 'War on Terror', but more importantly, the unspoken and often unheard developments within Islamist extremism globally." Husain argues that "the global Islamist movement then split into two, immediately after 9/11," into global jihadists like al-Qaeda on one side and non-violent extremists on the other.
This video is part of a special Council on Foreign Relations series that explores how 9/11 changed international relations and U.S. foreign policy. In this video, Isobel Coleman, Senior Fellow and Director of CFR's Civil Society, Markets, and Democracy Initiative, discusses how the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2011 influenced a debate over social and economic challenges and opportunities in the Middle East.