9-11 Errors In Preventing Terrorist Attacs Essay Example

Abstract

September 11, 2001 was a very historic day. Not only did it affect the United States of America it affected everyone around the world. I want to discuss some of the things that helped the terrorist complete their attacks. In my opinion, no one specifically is to blame for the attacks, but there were certain elements that contributed to the event.

9-11 Errors

It has been well known that the U.S. Government likes to keep secrets. One of the most important factors is the government agencies lack of communication with each other. That could have, and should have been utilized and maybe 9/11 would have been prevented. A week before the attacks there was a teletype sent out to multiple agencies. The teletype summarized “the known facts regarding Moussaoui. It did not report the case agent’s personal assessment that Moussaoui planned to hijack an airplane” (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, 2004, p. 274). The teletype was published to the FBI, CIA, the FAA, the Customs Service, the State Department, the INS, and the Secret Service. If the information was disclosed that Moussaoui planned to hijack an airplane, then maybe it would have put one of the many agencies on high alert. Another reason terrorist were successful is because the FAA did not include the tipoff list to screen passengers. The tipoff list contains the names of individuals who are known and suspected international terrorists. At the time of the attacks there were people on that list who were allowed to fly on September 11th. “…two of the hijackers were on the U.S. TIPOFF terrorist watchlist, the FAA did not use the TIPOFF data” (Pearson, 2012, p. 37). Since, 9/11 there has been numerous improvements to America’s security policy. The Homeland Security Act was signed by President Bush in 2002. The purpose of this act was to prevent terrorist attacks, analyze threats, and to organize how the nation will respond to future attacks. Even with this Act in place, we as US citizens have a responsibility to ensure that our country remains safe.

References

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (2004). The 9/11 Commission report: Final report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. New York: Norton. Pearson (2012). Pearson Criminal Justice. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Review Questions For “Britain Vs. India”

The reason why Britain considered India its “jewel in the crown” is a topic of interest.

The industrial revolution transformed Britain into the global center of manufacturing, with India being a significant provider of raw materials for British industry. With its population of 300 million, India presented a substantial market for British products. Consequently, India was regarded as the most prized colony and the ultimate asset by the British.

4. The Indians were unable to unite against the British during the Sepoy Mutiny due to weak leadership and significant divisions between Hindus and Muslims. Hindus opposed the restoration of the Muslim Mughal Empire and, in fact, some preferred British rule over Muslim rule.

5. Under the Raj, the British rule took what form?

The British government directly commanded India during the period known as the Raj, which refers to British rule after India came under the British crown during Queen Victoria’s reign. Policy was directed by a cabinet minister in London, and a governor-general acted on the government’s orders. From 1877 onwards, this official held the title of viceroy.

6. Economic imperialism led to India’s colonization by the British due to the significant power imbalance between the two. The British, being much more powerful, effortlessly took control over India and subsequently oppressed the Indians by limiting their financial resources and authority.

7. The decision to grease the Sepoys’ cartridges with beef and pork fat suggests the British disregard and disrespect towards the Indian and Muslim religions. The Indians, who consider cows sacred, and the Muslims, who do not eat pork, would be offended by this act.

8. The discontent and resentment towards British rule in India led to a desire for national independence as a means to unify the country and challenge imperialism. The Indians recognized the power and control that the British exerted, fueling their determination to rid India of British rule in the pursuit of nationalism.

9. In the writing activity of Empire Building, compose an editorial for an underground Indian newspaper. This editorial should outline the grievances against the British and advocate for self-government.

a. Initially, the British valued India not only for its existing profit but also for its potential. The industrial revolution had transformed Britain into the global center of manufacturing, and India played a crucial role as a supplier of raw materials for this manufacturing hub.

India’s population of 300 million people presented a significant potential market for British goods. Consequently, the British regarded India as their most valuable colony and set up regulations to prevent the Indian economy from functioning independently. These policies required India to produce raw materials for British manufacturing and purchase British goods while barring competition with British products. The establishment of a railroad network in India further enhanced its importance to the British, allowing for the transportation of raw materials and manufactured goods. However, the British held sway over Indian politics and economics, restricting Indian-owned industries and prioritizing cash crops. This shift led to a decline in self-sufficiency for villagers, resulting in famines in the late 1800s. Despite officially adopting a hands-off approach towards Indian religious and social customs, the British presence, including missionaries and the prevailing racist attitudes of British officials, threatened traditional Indian life. By 1850, the British ruled over most of the Indian subcontinent; yet, pockets of dissent persisted. Many Indians believed that along with controlling their land, the British were attempting to convert them to Christianity.

The British expressed constant racism towards the Indian people, which resulted in resentment and nationalism. Economic problems in India further heightened these feelings. In 1857, gossip spread among the Indian soldiers, known as sepoys, that the new Enfield rifles’ cartridges were greased with beef and pork fat. To use these cartridges, the soldiers had to bite off the ends. This news outraged both Hindus, who consider cows sacred, and Muslims, who abstain from eating pork. Lord Kitchener’s quote, “It is this consciousness of the inherent superiority of the European which has won for us India. However well educated and clever a native may be, and however brave he may prove himself, I believe that no rank we can bestow on him would cause him to be considered an equal of the British officer,” exemplifies the British ignorance. In reality, there is no inherent difference between British and Indian people apart from their religious beliefs. Religious differences should not make a British officer superior to an Indian.

The mutiny escalated the mistrust between the British and the Indians. An political paper proposed that both Hindus and Muslims “are being destroyed under the tyranny and oppression of the deceitful English.” In the early 1800s, certain Indians began demanding increased modernization and a larger role in self-governance. Ram Mohun Roy, an educated and forward-thinking Indian, launched a campaign to steer India away from traditional customs and ideas. He believed that if these practices remained unchanged, India would continue to be dominated by foreigners. Roy’s writings inspired other Indian reformers to advocate for the adoption of Western ways. Additionally, Roy established a social reform movement dedicated to bringing about change in India. Alongside modernization and Westernization, nationalist sentiments began to emerge in India. Indians detested a system that relegated them to second-class citizens in their own nation.

Indians in the Indian Civil Service were prohibited from occupying top positions and those who secured middle-level jobs were paid significantly less than Europeans. This discrimination subjected Indians to inferior treatment within their own nation, including racial bias, unfair working conditions conflicting with their religious beliefs, and meager wages. By controlling the economy, agriculture, and assuming the highest-ranking roles, the British further marginalize Indians, displaying both arrogance and ethnocentrism. Their rapid imperialism involved seizing Indian land without mercy.

Book Review: “The Clash Of Civilizations”

Abstract

In 1993, Harvard professor of Political Science Samuel Huntington published an article in Foreign Affairs. In it, he put forth a highly controversial thesis: that future conflicts would be between civilizations rather than political or ideological lines. This essay examines the validity of his claims and advances a contrary view. It argues that the speculated clashes between civilizations are largely confined to perceptions and that resurfacing cultural identities lack enough conviction of purpose for a distinct clash to occur.

Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations is a remarkable tour de force of inductive analysis based on geopolitical trends and supplemented with a profound understanding of religion’s role in determining human identity. He paints a picture in which modernism, secularization, and free market participation have leveled people across the globe. Yet, the essential religious identity resists all the powerful mechanics of egalitarianism. According to Huntington, What are you?” is the crucial question in the conflict between civilizations, pointing towards something immutable (1993). As an inevitable outcome, therefore, the world is heading for a tremendous clash of civilizations.

Huntington’s thesis is the result of meticulous research and a faultless chain of inductive reasoning. He analyzes discrete points of conflict from a predominantly religious perspective to see how the tectonics of religion can explain troubled areas of the world. With a broad overview of history, Huntington describes the age of kings making way for republics with the French Revolution. The mercantilist European nation-states clashed in the First World War, which heralded a new world order where ideologies such as Communism, fascism, and democracy formed the basis for nation-states.

The elimination of fascism in the Second World War left the world divided along lines between Communism and free-market democracy – this was known as the Cold War era characterized by military build-up and rapid economic growth. However, with final demise of Communism in 1991 came an elimination of ideological make-up that allowed civilization to reorganize along more fundamental lines – those based on religion.

Various conflict points around the world illustrate how religion is beginning to reassert itself over and above all other indoctrinated political ideologies. The spheres of civilization identified include Anglo-Saxon, European, South American, African, Moslem, Hindu, Sinic-Confucian and Slavic-Orthodox. These spheres are not entirely exclusive to each other as there are varying degrees of affinity between them. For instance, North and South America can come together under certain terms while Arabs, Chinese and Westerners tend to be more exclusive to each other and therefore come across as distinct cultures (Ibid).

Apart from the demise of political ideology, Huntington gives six other reasons for the rise of civilizational identity. Firstly, as already stated, it is the most fundamental level of identity. Secondly, in a shrinking world, there is more interaction with different civilizations which helps to intensify consciousness of one’s own. Thirdly, modernization weakens political affiliations to the state. Fourthly, as the West becomes more and more powerful and exclusive, smaller nations react and try to foster local identities such as “Asianization” in Japan or “Hinduization” in India. Fifthly, cultural characteristics are less mutable. Finally, economic regionalism is on the rise which tends to enhance cultural identity.

From the perspective of discrete civilizational blocks, such an analysis is hard to refute. With sweeping generalizations, Huntington is able to impart personal character to the civilizations he talks about. In the arena of conflict, with such well-defined combatants, a game plan that accords with the character traits, weaknesses and strengths of the players will not seem implausible. At one point, Huntington observes that in regards to Islam versus the West, in both camps there is indeed a civilizational clash between them (Ibid). However, these are attitudes and not convictions. They are meant to reinforce a sense of identity but hardly propel one into action. They are expressions of personal angst engendered by cosmopolitan existence; hardly a war cry.

It begs the question of whether such sweeping generalizations of Huntington’s are justified in the first place. When we shift our focus from civilizations to individuals, the picture suddenly loses clarity. The clinching question is this: how willing is the individual to fight on behalf of their civilization? Mobilizing a civilization against another requires a conviction of purpose that matches. When we recall the crusades of the Middle Ages, we have an inkling of what a clash of civilizations means. The Crusaders marched to Jerusalem on foot with a sense of purpose that is almost impossible for modern urbanites troubled with a lack of identity and belonging to imagine. Such conviction does not manifest itself anywhere in today’s free market paradise, neither among individuals nor among nation-states.

The 1990 Gulf War, which Huntington puts forward as substantiating his theory, actually tears it to pieces. Saddam Hussein was merely pulling a publicity stunt when he announced his war against the US-led coalition as a war of Islam against the West. His own Iraq was the most westernized of all Arab nations. Apart from a few terrorists, such a call did not resonate at all with Muslims worldwide and only led to some Muslims seeking vicarious pleasure in opposing and demonizing the United States in private.

Huntington cites the Arab and Muslim nations as withdrawing from the coalition but for what other purpose than to service an orgy of affected indignation among the masses? In short, the response of the Muslim world was confined to sentiment and posturing exactly when they were offered with an opportune occasion for them to express solidarity towards Islam. No inclination towards genuine civilizational conflict was manifested through this event.

In his lengthy essay, Huntington ultimately concedes that internecine strife is a frequent occurrence among Muslims, severely hindering the possibility of forming a civilizational front. He acknowledges that violence occurs not only between Muslims and Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans, but also with Jews in Israel, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Burma and Catholics in the Philippines. However, this summary is not entirely accurate as there are also internal conflicts within Islam that contribute to bloodshed. This does not align with the concept of a civilizational front. Despite making Palestine’s resistance against Israel a prominent argument in his thesis, Huntington fails to mention the ongoing bickering among Palestinians themselves. Recent reports indicate armed clashes between supporters of Hamas and Fatah (Palestinian rivals”, n.d.), highlighting internal fault lines within Islam. If this serves as an example for Islamic unity against the West, then what hope remains?

Is the West gearing up for a civilizational confrontation? US imperialism seems to give this impression, and Huntington concurs (Ibid). However, he is referring to economic” imperialism, which makes a crucial difference. Upon analyzing the roots causes of all the wars fought by the West since World War II, economic motives are found to be at their heart. This is especially true in the case of the two recent Gulf Wars. If America were a mercantilist nation like eighteenth-century European nations, then charges of imperialism would be justified. However, America stands for democracy and the free market; therefore, it defends a world economy rather than just its own interests.Huntington describes institutions such as the World Bank and IMF as imposing Western blueprints on developing countries under guise of aid and finance. Nevertheless, these institutions operate on principles adopted by almost all nation-states: supply and demand economics from Smithsonian economics. While competition has winners and losers, this does not mean that they are in opposing civilizational camps when both parties are playing by established rules.Westerners sometimes militaristically espouse universal principles of democracy and self-determination against other civilizations’ tenets worldwide. However, these same principles have been adopted everywhere with lesser degrees of conviction. Therefore if Western nations sound vociferous on behalf of democracy and free markets against other norms globally that does not equate to civilizational confrontation but rather an act of affirmation.

Once again, the Gulf War highlights the Western attitude towards civilization, as it did in the case of Muslims. The second Gulf War should have united the West against the scourge of Muslim terrorism. However, it has instead resulted in a deeply divided United States and a deeply divided West. The war continues to be fought by America’s impoverished classes and mercenaries, with no clear manifestation of a will to fight for the sake of civilization.

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Europe was devastated by wars of religion following the Protestant Reformation. The resulting anarchy led to the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century. This movement was characterized by a group of philosophers who rejected religion in favor of a rational paradigm based on Galileo and Newton’s science. However, this thinking also had a religious fervor that ultimately contributed to the anarchy of the French Revolution. Among these philosophers, Voltaire stood out for his insight and outspoken criticism of the Catholic Church. He was imprisoned and exiled multiple times, spending two years in Protestant England where he observed an extraordinary evolution taking place among English society.

Voltaire saw England as a cherished escape route from religious anarchy due to its natural talent for liberty. He noted that An Englishman…may go to heaven his own way” (2004, p. 14). This talent for liberty was exemplified in London’s financial stock exchange – “the Royal Exchange…more venerable than many courts of justice” – where people from all nations and religions transacted together without discrimination (Ibid., p. 18).

Voltaire was prescient in recognizing the Anglo-Saxon talent that has overtaken the world, nullifying all religions in favor of a secular order centered on trade and free markets. Huntington’s description of a re-affirmation of religious identity within the alienating order of secularism may be nothing more than a cowardly relapse into a comfort zone of presumed identity. Only when we abandon secularism completely and foster true religious identity can we speak in terms of civilizational conflict.

Huntington’s bland prescription at the end of his essay is: For the relevant future, there will be no universal civilization, but instead a world of different civilizations, each of which will have to learn to coexist with others” (1993). This reeks of secularist compromise and disqualifies him from speaking in terms of civilizations.

References

Huntington, Samuel P. (1993). The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs. Retrieved November 25, 2007 from http://history.club.fatih.edu.tr/103HuntingtonClashofCivilizationsfulltext.htm

Palestinian Rivals: Fatah & Hamas” was retrieved from BBC News on November 25, 2007. The website link is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5016012.stm.

Voltaire (2004) wrote Letters on the English” or “Lettres Philosophiques.” The book was published by Kessinger Publishing in Whitefish, MT.

error: Content is protected !!