Accepting 'The New Normal'
We mourned, united, and adapted. But five years after 9/11, we are divided once again
"Big bang." It didn't take the 2004 presidential election to prove that America was once again a riven nation, but it showed that red and blue Americans were now also deeply and evenly divided over the incumbent's handling of the war on terrorism. Bush's supporters could-and still can-point to one indisputable fact: not one successful act of terrorism on American soil since September 11. Yet the charges of incompetent leadership would grow ever sharper, many coming from traditional conservatives. "Five years into the global war on terror," says Loren Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, "and trillions spent on the military has done remarkably little for its long-term health."
Strategically, Bush's plan for a "Big Bang" transformation of the Middle East is also receiving low marks from some of its earlier backers. Thomas Barnett, author of The Pentagon's New Map and Blueprint for Action, faults the administration for accumulating more and more "postwar situations"-in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now, through encouragement of Israel, Lebanon-without solving any of them. "That is the path I've been warning against," Barnett says, "because if it seems cumulative, the American public gets tired." And that is to say nothing about how these postwar situations are serving as recruitment ads and training grounds for the swelling ranks of jihadists.
To keep track of the growing threat, U.S. intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA, have been on a hiring binge, adding hundreds and hundreds of new analysts and case officers. But the CIA is suffering from a dearth of experienced hands, many of whom were driven out or retired during the troubled tenure of former Director Porter Goss. Domestically, it still seems very much in doubt that the FBI can effectively add counterterrorism to its law enforcement responsibilities.
Meanwhile, the American public is resigned to the inevitability of further attacks, says Karlyn Bowman, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who has tracked polling data on attitudes toward terrorism-related subjects since 9/11. "But no one should have expected public opinion to be simple," she adds. "They believe it's a more dangerous world, but also feel they are safer. They give some credit for things like airport security, though they are still worried about other areas like port security." Bowman finds Americans are willing to put up with inconvenience, discomfort, and even some encroachment upon their civil liberties. Perhaps that is because most believe we are in for a long struggle, one that, in their view, neither side is currently winning. "We are resilient," Bowman says, "but there seems to be a deep hangover-a deep level of pessimism."
Or call it the realism of the aging new normal. "I think the terrorists have discovered that they have great power over our daily lives, our material lives, even over our imagination of the present and future. This is significant power," says Walter Reich, a professor of international affairs at George Washington University. But the way Americans have hardened themselves to the terrorist threat is also a source of power. Many believe that our tactics and strategy are badly in need of overhaul-and high percentages disapprove of the president's leadership-but very few think this is a struggle that we can or will lose.
advertisement
