Search

While there have been myriad and significant changes in technology, geopolitical relations, environmental shifts and political upheaval, we are still plagued with social inequalities, injustice, warfare and xenophobia, all of which frames our context and contextual analysis. September 11 was a global event or moment because it happened in the United States, and this is not inconsequential to how global hegemony and international relations are configured and unpacked. Had 9/11 taken place elsewhere, would we have taken as much notice? Invading Iraq, like invading Vietnam, and like myriad other examples of deleterious and nefarious experiments in militarization, ultimately foments the contrary of peace, solidarity and social justice. This paper explores the two decades after 9/11, emphasizing the centrality of peace and the need for critically engaged and transformative education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the United States, the President is the principal actor in foreign policy making. This was certainly the case after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the deadliest attack on U.S. soil. In the field of international relations, however, most of the research regarding U.S. foreign policy after the 9/11 terrorist attacks have focused on evaluating or criticizing the war on terror, while the national security decisions that led to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq have been under-researched. Previous research has left much to be desired; this research aims to unearth what empowered President Bush to make such foreign policy decisions. To do so, an analytical framework that combines cognitive and structural approaches1 has been constructed. Analyzing cognitive aspects and the factors concerning the international security environment after the 9/11 terrorist attacks adequately explains the foreign policy decisions made in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. In this light, the research reaffirms the dominance of the President in U.S. foreign policy making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

US public anger and desire to avenge the September 11, 2001 terror attacks were redirected toward Iraq partly because of its identity as an Arab and Muslim state. Online panel survey data reveal that citizens who were relatively angry about the terror attacks were more belligerent toward Iraq, an effect that was strongest among those who perceived Arabs and Muslims in monolithic terms. The angry desire to avenge 9/11 was more persistent for those who saw Arabs and Muslims in that light, and its effect on war support was partially mediated by worsened feelings about Arabs and Muslims in general. These findings help explain why public belligerence toward Iraq shot up right after 9/11, before President George W. Bush began alleging that Iraq was pursuing weapons of mass destruction and had ties to al Qaeda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To better understand how desires to avenge the September 11 terror attacks affected US public support for the 2003 Iraq War, we integrate data from two uncoordinated surveys-one measuring revenge motivations and the other beliefs about Iraqi complicity-completed by overlapping samples drawn from the same online panel. Citizens who mistakenly blamed Iraq for 9/11 were more likely to say that going to war would satisfy their desires for revenge, which in turn predicted greater war support, controlling for political orientations and the perceived security incentives and costs of war. But a substantial proportion of those who said Iraq was not involved in 9/11 also expected war to satisfy desires for revenge, suggesting that a revenge "spillover" effect also contributed to war support. These findings help explain how President George W. Bush was able to bring the nation to war against Iraq, testify to the importance of emotion and moral motivation in public opinion, and demonstrate the utility of integrating data from independent online panel surveys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an evidence based evaluation of the 12 core structured analytical techniques (SATs) in intelligence analysis dealing with the need to improve analytical practices following the 9/11 attacks and Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) issue. Topics include Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA), usage of intelligence analysis in the medical field, and data recorded by Maryland Scientific Methods Scale (MSMS).

The article offers the author's insights related to the terrorism in Iraq and the connection of the U.S. military in the country. Topics discussed include the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York in 2001 by Saddam Hussein which led to the conflict between Iraq and the U.S., the cost of war between the two countries which could worth $2-$6 trillion, and several terrorists groups that strengthens Iran which were the Sunni, Al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).