The US' Biggest Problem after 9/11

Although the “4/15 Boston terrorist incident” did not lead to huge casualties like the “9/11 terrorist attack” did 12 years ago, the degree of shock for the American society caused by this Boston tragedy, which occurred in the United States’ “city of knowledge” — the nation’s founding point as well as the land symbolizing the harmonious integration of many cultures — must not be underestimated. People are worried that this terrorist incident may bring the terror syndrome back to America, just like after 9/11.

Since the tragedy 12 years ago, Americans have always been asking the single question: “Why do they hate us?” The mainstream conclusion at the time was that “it was a barbaric attack on civilized people.” According to this judgment, in order to prevent a repeat of the tragedy, the United States needs to eliminate stubborn “barbarians” through war, exercise strict control over the “barbarians” attempting to immigrate to the United States and strengthen security measures through a variety of means.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were justified by the logic above. A large number of outstanding immigrants were blocked outside the United States’ door.

The diplomatic turn toward unilateralism and military priority made U.S. debt skyrocket and triggered massive recession with this “subprime crisis.” American society is heading toward conservatism and isolation, which directly damages its international competitiveness, and harsh immigration policies have made many talented people lose interest in the “American dream.” According to the latest report by the Brookings Institution in 2010, 96,000 foreign students received master’s or doctorate degrees in mathematics, physics and chemistry in the United States, but only about 20,000 received a highly-skilled worker visa. In 2006, half of the people in entrepreneurial enterprises in Silicon Valley were Chinese or Indian. By 2011, this figure has dropped to 42 percent.

The United States’ biggest problem after 9/11 is in its wrong definition of “security,” the labeling of some countries as members of the “axis of evil” in the pursuit of “absolute security,” and the isolation of itself through the elimination of the “barbarians” and the construction of various seemingly impenetrable “protective walls.” It is true that after 2001, no externally planned terrorist attacks of large scale have occurred in the United States. However, “indigenous terrorist incidents” in the United States have been continuously rising, as proven by the frequent occurrence of school shootings in recent years and the bombing in Boston.

In 2008, Obama, the icon of multicultural integration, was elected president, reflecting mainstream American public opinion’s rejection of the practice above. In the past few years, the United States also seems to be trying hard to show people a new attitude — more willing to cooperate, converse and tolerate. Before the terrorist attack this time, the U.S. Congress was discussing the biggest immigration reform in recent years. Now, doubts exist as to whether these trends will be hindered because of 4/15.

Now is the time to test the wisdom of the United States. It will be very dangerous if the leaders of the United States guide the people toward a return to the “absolute security” concept once again, even though it may be tempting in the short run in terms of politicians’ political interests. The pursuit of “absolute security” is often less secure; what is different from 9/11 is that the suspects who planned and implemented this bombing were in the United States, rather than in some cave in Afghanistan. The pursuit of so-called “absolute domestic security” will likely lead American society to be skeptical about specific groups, which is likely to cause social division and expedite the birth of new terror.

Terrorist activities must be condemned. Terrorists must be subject to sanctions. However, extreme reactions often lead to the opposite result. We hope that the United States can learn from the lessons 12 years ago and face the current challenges calmly.

The author is an associate professor at Japanese National Niigata University.