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]

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 discusses several aspects of then-U.S. President George W. Bush's twenty-first century foreign policy plan which is known as the Bush Doctrine, and it mentions how the Bush Doctrine deals with international politics, the importance of a state's domestic regime in determining its foreign policy, preventive war strategies, and a willingness to act unilaterally when necessary. Regime change and the September 11, 2001 terror attacks are addressed, along with the efforts to overthrow former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and spread democracy throughout Iraq and the Middle East.