9/11 has had a lasting effect on world affairs

Two and a half decades on, the shadow of September 11 still stretches across American foreign policy—not as a single memory, but as a set of assumptions about threats, power, and the nature of conflict. Stuart Gottlieb’s reflection in The Hill captures how the attacks accelerated a pivot from interstate rivalry to the murky world of non-state actors, a shift that has defined U.S. military doctrine, intelligence priorities, and diplomatic rhetoric ever since. Yet as the article suggests, the deeper transformation may be conceptual: terrorism, once treated as a law-enforcement problem, became a permanent state of war. That redefinition carries consequences that both supporters and critics of the post-9/11 approach continue to debate. On one side, the refocus on non-state actors was a necessary response to a genuine and evolving threat. Al Qaeda and its affiliates demonstrated that a small, networked group could inflict catastrophic harm, and treating such actors as combatants rather than criminals gave the U.S. the legal and operational tools to disrupt plots, dismantle sanctuaries, and kill or capture key leaders. The intelligence community’s transformation, though controversial, yielded undeniable tactical victories. For many, this is the pragmatic price of security in a world where borders no longer contain violence. On the other side, the framing of terrorism as warfare has created a permanent state of exception—endless drone campaigns, detention policies, and surveillance programs that have strained civil liberties and international norms. Critics argue that the “war on terror” mindset overmilitarized what is fundamentally a political and ideological struggle, often empowering authoritarian allies and fueling the very radicalization it sought to extinguish. Gottlieb’s emphasis on the battle of ideas speaks directly to this critique: if the United States defines itself primarily by what it fights against, it risks losing sight of the values and narratives that make its vision compelling. What makes this anniversary piece particularly useful is its refusal to settle the debate. It acknowledges that the attacks fundamentally changed American foreign policy, but leaves room for readers to judge whether that change was prudent, excessive, or some complicated mixture of both. In that sense, the article mirrors the broader national reckoning: we can honor the memory of 9/11 while still questioning the choices made in its name. The lasting effect on world affairs is not a settled fact but an open question—one that will continue to shape elections, alliances, and military commitments for decades to come. Source: https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/6082720-9-11-anniversary-american-foreign-policy/