Analyse the importance of the attacks in changing the American perspective on safety. How did those events alter how Americans perceived of their place in international politics?
Post 1- Simone
Hi all,
I think Brands chose this term “Blowback” because it described everything that was occurring during this time period. This showed how the foreign policies that America had set forth were the main focus during this time period. America was afraid of the “blowback” that would possibly occur after setting forth relations, policies, and different efforts to overthrow their enemies. If we look at the September 11th tragedy, I do not think America has come to terms with understanding why this attack happened. So many innocent bystanders became victims and were killed in an instant. Many loved ones of families were killed just for being “at the wrong place and wrong time”. I do not think it is fair for us to say if Americans have come to grips with understanding this attack: because everyone can have different opinions on this. I, who had no family members or close ones killed can easily say I have come to grips with this attack. However, there are those who had family members and close ones killed, yet they cannot come to terms with this attack- and that is completely valid and understandable. Being a religious Jew, there have been many stories that have been published that many Jews happen to not go to work that day due to sleeping late, or prayers taking extra long that morning- and for me that brings such comfort and can help me come to grips with understanding the terrible tragedy that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Post 2 – Donald
I think Brands chose the term’ blowback’ because it was a very good description of what was going on at the turn of the 21st century. The first thing was the blowback that Al Gore was going to have to deal with if he decided to run for President and embrace the Clinton legacy. President Clinton was very good president and was the only president in modern memory to leave the country in good economic condition. By running with Clinton at his side Gore would have to withstand the relentless GOP attacks on Clinton as well as the fallout from his impeachment. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and obstruction of justice in what stemmed from a personal matter. If lying under oath and obstruction of justice were grounds for impeachment in our current climate, the current President could have been impeached dozens of times. But Gore did face political blowback depending on how he ran the presidential race. Another good example was the blowback from the terror attacks on 911. It has been argued that Bush did not have the country prepared for a terror attack of that size and nature. Usually the buck stops with the president on these matters. Another blowback from early in the 21st century would have been President Bush’s decision to go to war with Iraq. Bush claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence later showed that Bush was not being truthful about the intelligence he received. It was found later that their were no WMD in Iraq. Bush and his VP continually lied and gave half truths in order to go war. The war proved to be at the cost of many human lives. The war did not make make the problem of terrorism better it made it worse. These are but a handful of examples of ‘blowback’ that came from the turn of the 21st century and the Bush presidency. As far as the country coming to grips with the understanding of why the attacks happened on 911, in my experience it depends on where you live. My friends in the New York area are still trying to come to grips with it and I see much PTSD. People I know in other areas are doing much better. I think the main thing that spurred the terrorists on was the United States continued occupation of countries in the Middle East.
