The 9-11 terrorist attacks did not only have a serious effect on the world economy and in the domestic affairs of the United States. It also presented an opportunity for the American people and policy makers to reshape and rethink the objectives of the foreign policy, relations, and the influences that the US has with the rest of the world.

As one of the most immediate reactions in the aftermath of the 9-11 terrorist attack the United States basically declared a War on Terror worldwide. Consequently with this aim American foreign policy and diplomacy has mainly focused on building up an alliance that would grant the necessary multilateral support for the US to undergo her anti-terrorist campaign.<18>

Moreover, it can be argued that American consensus was built on weak grounds. Ever since the 9-11 attacks CNN presented strongly supportive arguments in favour of the US government. It is reasonable to state that in various occasions both CNN and the Bush administration have come up with closely similar opinions directed to achieve a veiled but mutually asserted objective: to pronounce in favour of war.

Prior to the War on Iraq CNN performed a specific task: to bring back the terrifying memories of the 9-11 terrorist attack in order to possibly justify a further American intervention in terrorist suspected countries (such as Iraq)<19>; and to build up a consensus in the public opinion regarding the imminent threat that Iraq presented, in terms of possessing arms of mass destruction, to both the United States and the world’s security. <20> Nevertheless, CNN failed to provide factual data in terms of the type, number and location of such weapons. As the BBC argued in several occasions it was unclear, previous to the invasion, whether or not Iraq had such mentioned capabilities; moreover, it was well known that Saddam´s military was in a decaying status. <21> It is uncertain which part had the dominant influence, what remains unquestionable is the fact that both parts aimed to obtain legitimacy for a further invasion on any pro-terrorist State, either by presenting unproven facts or by exaggerating the degree of the threat that such a context presented to US national security.

The aftermath of the 9-11 terrorist attack has been consequent with the ambivalence and convenience of US foreign policy. <22> In order to gain a wide support in the Middle East, to overthrow supposedly threatening regime of Saddam Hussein, American diplomacy had a sudden shift in the relations of the United States with countries such as Iran or Pakistan. In the one hand, Iran was somehow pardoned after been labeled by the US as the top international supporter of terrorist groups; while on the other hand, the Pakistani economic embargo for violation of US policy of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons was lifted. <23>

Changes in US foreign policy have also come to benefit or legitimate States that also carry out a fight towards domestic terrorist groups. The case of Russia is a good example. Some authors agree to believe that after the War on Iraq many countries may appear to believe they have the sufficient legitimacy and international support to carry out similar campaigns as the one the US did on Iraq. The Russians fighting the Islamic fundamentalist groups of Chechnya <24> or the Turks fighting back the Kurdish militia may be some of the indirect consequences that the US foreign policy might have caused.

Nevertheless, the new American foreign policy faces severe challenges. As recently seen during the War on Iraq, where one of the most upsetting issues for American people was the number of US casualties. Ever since the Vietnam War the death toll has probably been the most restrictive condition American presidents face when wanting to escalate a military conflict. Nowadays the Cold War and the Containment policy, once implemented by George Kennan is now obsolete; nevertheless, the Bush administration, as a result of the 9-11 attacks, has developed a new strategic defensive policy based on pre-emptive attacks, allegedly with the intention to overthrow any regime that may pose a threat to American way of living and consequently to American values, such as Democracy. But to some authors such an argument is not more than a façade. Michael Madelbaum states that the American society is a bellicose one, thus it has to propel the military, capital and political investment inside and outside the United States, thus the 9-11 attacks have given just about the perfect excuse to insert some dynamism, especially in the military and the construction industries. This has proved to be truth as the Plan for the reconstruction for Iraq has been laid out. Hence, American policy can be understood form different perspectives.

Ever since the 9-11 attacks the Bush administration has made it clear that the US leads a campaign to hunt down any pro terrorist regime that may finance or host terrorist cells such as Al-Qaeda, as stated in a speech to a joint session of the Congress on September the 20th, 2001. Along with the fight against these kinds of regimes there also laid an implicit desire to overthrow terrorist related governments. <25> Both Mass Media and the US government have made some remarks possibly targeting the governments of Syria, Iran, Libya, and the OLP, among others. These governments have used terrorist activities to promote their political objectives, nonetheless these regimes do not present a high degree of popularity from within their respective countries <26>, hence the US may be betting on their own inflicted demise or a fairly easy one to achieve as it did happen with Iraq.

The shift in US foreign policy is so determined that almost no government may be exempt of US scrutiny. Consequently with this sort of witch hunting policy the Bush administration appears to be willing to go all the way in terms fighting back anti-American governments world wide, including Cuba and especially North Korea for alleged violations of human rights or nuclear arms policies respectively. Nonetheless, neither of these countries has experienced such a fierce US foreign policy as Iraq recently did when being invaded in March of the current year. An intervention that obeyed to American interests in the Middle East region.

The French Newspaper Le Monde has criticized America foreign policy ever since the 9-11 attacks. It has criticized US interventionism, especially in Iraq, from two different perspectives: the lack of legitimacy of the intervention; and the real interests pursued by the American government in the Middle East region. Le Monde stated that in order for France, and many other countries, to be loyal to the American cause the intervention must had been supported by UN resolutions clearly outlaying the threat that a given country, such as Iraq, might present to the international security. In the second place, Le Monde assured that the so-called American objectives (To destroy Iraqi military threat, the likely support that Iraq granted to terrorist organisations, and the aim to establish a democratic regime in Iraq) had no other meaning apart from being an instrument of US foreign policy.<27> Yet, Le Monde failed to achieve the overall picture of the oil context during Saddam´s Hussein. Such a regime presented undoubtedly advantageous conditions to French, as well as to Chinese and Russian oil companies. These corporations will certainly loose their privileges after the reconstruction process led by the Coalition Forces takes place.<28> Hence, such presence in Iraq remained one of the strongest objections embraced by the French government so as to oppose against the military intervention in one of the richest regions in terms of oil supplies.<29>

After questioning the legitimacy and real interests that the US had to turn the War on Terror into an interventionist type campaign, it is necessary to point out the ideological grounds that sustained American foreign policy. Michael Mandelbaum argues that American politicians and intellectuals have been led by the mistaken arguments. US believes that poverty and the complexity of the Arab-Israeli conflict are probably the main causes of international terrorism; thus, by aiming to provide economic relief to the region and fostering the peace accord between the Palestinian and the Israeli conflict the terrorism threat can be tackled down. However, the poverty problem is not been solved due to several internal issues of Arab governments such as corruption, illegality, social injustice, and lack of adequate investment; while on the other hand the conflict resolution is not likely to occur since the OLP still does not present grounds to fully approved an Israeli state bordering the future Palestinian state; moreover, the terrorist attacks of 9-11 appear to have little relation with the Israeli conflict.

Most important of all is the fact that accordingly to Mandelbaum arguments terrorism is not only targeted against the supporters of Israel in the Middle East region, such as the United States or Great Britain; moreover, the terrorists groups of the kind of Osama Bin Laden´s group is also directed to overthrow Arab infidel regimes. That is as argued by Noam Chomsky <30>, ever since American troops occupied Afghanistan after the Soviets retreated in 1989 the Taliban forces and some other Islamic fundamentalist groups, in which Osama Bin Laden had been participating, saw US interventionist as threatening as that of the Soviets; thus an anti American campaign started. One that extended to pro-American governments such as Saudi Arabia where up to now US held one of the most important airbases in the Middle East Region.

Similarly, Americans, government and people, have a severe misconception of the external causes that have led to terrorist attacks being targeted to the United States. Noam Chomsky states that there is a strong anti-American sentiment worldwide, it has not being built on fiction, rather on numerous interventions and constant support, to non-democratic or non pro human rights causes. In his book, 9-11; Chomsky presents several examples, some being the tactical and financial support to the contras in Nicaragua when aiming to overthrow the Sandinista revolution in the decade of the 80´s or the even more outrageous support to Islamic fundamentalist as mentioned before. Thus, American interventionism sometimes contradicting the same values preached by the US government is just another of the main grounds from which terrorism has to be understood. The greatest flaw of US foreign policy, according to these authors, is to disregard the effects of previously implemented American actions abroad and the damaging effects, to the US, these acts had on world opinion, more especially in extremist groups.

Notes:

<18> Nevertheless, massive support towards US initiatives has failed to occur. Many countries had supported US intentions to disarm authoritarian regimes such as the Iraqi one, but have failed to openly do so. All because of the fear of suffering possible terrorist attacks for supporting such polices. The case of Philippines or even Indonesia account for this fact, both governments are fearful of massive Islamic infirmity within their countries. (Cfr. Lema L Karen and Valisno O Jeffrey. “GMA defends government support to US action”. Manila: Business World, March 20, 2003.

<19> “On September 11, 2001, four U.S. planes hijacked by terrorists crashed into the World Trade Center, The Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania killing more than 3,000 people in a matter of hours. Behind the staggering number of deaths are the individuals, each of whom left behind family, friends and coworkers who feel the national tragedy on a personal level. CNN.com has established this site as an evolving record of those who died and a place for readers to build a living memorial for them.” (Cfr. CNN: War on Terror < http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/>)

<20> CNN spent lengthy sections on its web page [Terror on tape: Chemical Tests.] to account for the imminent terrorist threat that groups such as Al Qaeda or her sponsors, countries like Iraq, represented to international security. (Cfr. Robertson, Nic. Terror on Tape. )

<21> Cfr: Marcus, Jonathan. Saddam's rusting arsenal. < http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/1866944.stm>

<22> Consequently with Noam Chomsky´s arguments United States is widely regarded as a terrorist state. In his book 9-11 the author outlines some of the most important violations that American regimes had when supporting terrorist activities as the contra movement in Nicaragua, or the military and financial support given to the Taliban group in the decade of the 80´s when the same Osama Bin Laden along other groups carried a terrorist campaign in Afghanistan in order to undermine the Soviet occupation of this country. The examples are plenty, they all prove the inconsistency of US actions with her foreign policy objectives, but they all make a good point of what American priorities have largely been: to overthrow by any possible means any regime that posses a threat to American geopolitical or economic interests. (Cfr. Chomsky, Noam, 9-11, Seven Stories Press /New York, Canada, 2001)

<23> Cfr. Madelbaum, Michael. Diplomacia en tiempos de Guerra. Nuevas prioridades y alineaciones. Oxford University Press, México, 2001. p 274.

<24> A fight consider even by the US as a severe violation of Human Rights since one of the basic demands of the Chechnya based organizations is to achieve autonomy from Moscow. (Chomsky, Noam, Op. cit., p. 78)

<25> Probably the most questionable of all cases has been Afghanistan. A country that clearly did not provide any human or physical support to the 9-11 attacks, but then by hosting Al-Qaeda members gave the perfect excuse to the US to lead a military campaign targeted against the pro-terrorist Taliban government. (Mandelbaum, Michael, Op. Cit., p. 278)

<26> Ibidem. p 280

<27> The US has a number of objectives in the Middle East region: 1) To guarantee the oil supply for its domestic consumption, currently Saudi Arabia is the number one oil supplier to the US; thus, instability in the region threatens US domestic industry; 2) So far the US has made stable political alliances with moderate Arab regimes such as Egypt or Saudi Arabia; however, America aims to acquire and then to preserve the equilibrium in the Middle East region by establishing a democratic regime. Nevertheless, this may result in the creation of a unified anti-American Arab front, probably increasing the terrorist activity in western countries. (Cfr. Fraschon, Iain and Vernet, Daniel. L´école néo-impérialiste américaine. Le Monde: September the 15th, 2002.

<28> Total Final, Elf, Lukoil and China’s National Petroleum Company had businesses, under Saddam´s regime, worth 38 million US dollars. On the contrary, the Bush administration is expecting to modify such scenario by favoring American oil companies such as: Chevron, Texaco, and Exxon, amongst others. Similarly, companies belonging to the coalition countries will also be benefited: BP (British), Repsol (Spanish), and Shell (British and Dutch). Moreover, the reconstruction process presents one of the most profitable activities that the Bush administration will handle. Companies such as Halliburton, formerly chaired by US VP Dick Cheney, obtained a contract worth 900 millions US dollars for rebuilding oil infrastructure in post-Saddam Iraq. (Cfr. Martínez Sanjuana. “Bush empieza a repartir el petróleo de Irak”. México: Proceso, No. 1377. March 23, 2003. pp. 24-25).

<29> As stated by the American Oil Institute given the unstable political situation in Venezuela and the increasing closure of the Saudi Arabian government the United Stated needs to diversify her oil supply sources. The above-mentioned countries in addition to Mexico and Canada represent up to the 60% of oil supplies to the US. (Ibidem. pp. 24-25)

<30> Chomsky, Noam. Op. Cit., p. 35