9/11's Lasting Impact on US Foreign Policy and Unity
Left 33%
Center 67%
Right 0%
1 left · 2 center · 0 right
What happened
On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda operatives hijacked four U.S. commercial airliners, flying two into the World Trade Center in New York City, one into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, and one into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, killing 2,977 people. On September 17, 2001, President George W. Bush visited the Islamic Center of Washington and said the United States was not at war with Islam. The United States invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 against al-Qaeda and the Taliban and invaded Iraq in March 2003. Those wars and a broader counterterrorism campaign became central to U.S. foreign policy for more than two decades. Polling over that period shows most Americans still favoring an active U.S. role abroad while growing more divided along party lines over military force, foreign aid, and how that role should be exercised.
BLINDSPOT.
Only left-leaning outlets are covering this story
— the other side's media is silent.
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Right-leaning coverage of 9/11's lasting impact on U.S. foreign policy and unity has not appeared. Left-leaning coverage reports that the attacks reshaped strategy toward non-state actors, recast terrorism as warfare, and required a "long-term battle of ideas." It does not take up the argument that the clash of civilizations mostly failed to arrive, or that views of America's world role later split by party. A reader of the silent side therefore misses the anniversary reckoning in which post-attack unity gave way to a partisan foreign policy.
The Hill leads with lasting effect on world affairs while the Christian Science Monitor opens on the clash that never was.
Did treating terrorism as warfare after 9/11 leave Americans safer, or mainly more divided over when to use force?
Bottom line
Right-leaning outlets are silent on this anniversary, so that audience never hears The Hill's battle-of-ideas claim or the finding that Huntington's clash mostly never came true.
The receipts — 6 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Stuart Gottlieb says 9/11 shifted U.S. focus toward non-state actors and redefined terrorism as warfare
- The clash of civilizations Huntington predicted has for the most part not come true
- President Bush told the Islamic Center of Washington that Islam is peace
- After Sept. 11 nearly eight in 10 Americans said the U.S. should take an active role in world affairs
- A Gallup poll showed 80% of Republicans satisfied with America's global standing compared with 7% of Democrats
- Fawaz Gerges says the U.S. has been unable to unpack an addiction to solving problems by throwing military power at them
The Left View
The Hill published a reflection by Stuart Gottlieb arguing that the attacks reshaped U.S. foreign policy by shifting attention to non-state actors, treating terrorism as warfare, and framing a long-term battle of ideas. The Christian Science Monitor reported that Samuel Huntington’s 1990s “clash of civilizations” thesis did not fully materialize, citing Bush’s September 17, 2001, speech, the limited appeal of jihadist ideology, and later reforms in countries including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Indonesia. Monitor pieces also described post-9/11 unity giving way to partisan splits on engagement, with scholars including Jon Alterman, Michael Doyle, Fawaz Gerges, Bob Shapiro, and Dina Smeltz tying Iraq and Afghanistan to later cynicism, the rise of ISIS as an al-Qaeda offshoot, and younger Americans’ greater skepticism of military intervention. Those outlets further linked later uses of force, including a reported U.S. conflict with Iran, to an unfinished debate over whether Washington still treats complex problems as solvable by military power.
Our Take (balanced)
The core record is substantive and checkable: the 2001 attacks, Bush’s Islamic Center visit, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, Huntington’s published thesis, and long-running Gallup and Chicago Council surveys are established, not alleged. Interpretive claims—that U.S. wars “sustained” jihadists, that a civilizational clash was averted mainly by Bush’s rhetoric and regional reforms, or that current policy is “addicted” to force—are analysis by named scholars, not newly released documents. No right-leaning outlet has reported this anniversary package as presented. Watch for official 25th-anniversary statements, new Chicago Council and Gallup releases, and any declassified post-9/11 decision records that add primary evidence beyond commentary.
3 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.