Professors Reflect On U.S. Reaction To Terrorist Attacks

Six years after terrorist attacks destroyed the Twin Towers and took thousands of lives, many UC Berkeley professors are pointing to the nation’s response to the tragedy as a turning point in how foreign and domestic policy is discussed and formed in the U.S.

The Sept. 11 attacks have had a unique effect, according to Bruce Cain, director of the UC Washington Center and professor of political science. They parallel few other events that America has experienced, he said.

“It’s had a profound effect ... ,” he said. “There are only a few events that happen in a nation’s history (of this magnitude).”

Cain said the ramifications of the attacks, which mark the most significant foreign attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor, have put the country in unfamiliar territory when shaping foreign and domestic policy.

“There’s a greater sense of frustration about what to do about all of this,” he said. “Our military power is not the way to combat this type of terror.”

Richard M. Abrams, professor of the graduate school in the department of history, said that perhaps the most significant effect of the attacks stem not from the event itself but primarily from the response to it.

“Americans greatly overreacted to 9/11, especially in declaring our response a ‘war,’” he said in an e-mail. “The claim that 9/11 changed everything’ was from the beginning a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

It is this response and the policy challenges that followed Sept. 11 that provide the central focus of a class taught by Harry Kreisler, executive director of the Institute of International Studies, started in spring of 2002. The class, called “Issues in Foreign Policy after 9/11,” has attracted more than 200 students a year.

“I think as events have transpired, we’ve come to understand who the adversary is and the mistakes that we’ve been making in our foreign policy, I’ve tried to address those questions,” he said.

Kreisler pointed to what he called a misunderstanding in the basis of our government’s interpretation of the threat facing the country, particularly from terrorists.

“I think there is a threat from terrorists, from jihadists, but who they are and what danger they pose has been totally misunderstood by this administration, and in the process they have weakened and dissipated our military power,” he said.

Since the attacks, Ron E. Hassner, assistant professor of political science, said that according to the Library of Congress, there has been more literature written on the subject of religion and warfare than ever before.

But he added that the heightened interest has often led to mass misrepresentations of religious conflict.

“Many of the recent bestsellers on religion and international conflict display a strong anti-religious bias,” he said in an e-mail. “Islam has had to bear the brunt of this bias, which often borders on anti-religious bigotry.”

Regardless of the sometimes negative consequences of the heightened interest in religious warfare and increased concern over security, some pointed to the opportunity for more scrutiny of the government.

“We have probably been too ready to support strategies of law enforcement and security control rather than thinking hard about how much danger we’re really in and what’s been going on,” said Jonathan Simon, professor of law and faculty co-director of the Berkeley center of criminal justice. “I hope that people will be more critical.”

Tags: