Political Science

There are many diverse opinions regarding the 911 bombing. Conspiracy panics, with a diffuse anxiety over a diffuse menace and problematizes conspiracy theories as a relation between power and thought. Looking at this study through conspiracy theories to comprehend the various facts, the use of common ideas and taking thought seriously its then easier to unfold the governance. Looking at the govern mentality political rationality that composes the liberal arts of governance, this requires governing at a distance, respecting the immanent dynamics of society and trying to incorporate freedom as a formula of rule. This involves the use of a reason. Liberal political rationality signifies both a form governing and its content where the latter is a subject that relies on the exercise of reason and thought. Its really known that conspiracy panics operate with a transcendent critique where they appeal to a plane of settlement that only the analysts have access to but the statements can remain within the disclosure that produces them.

Not forgetting that governments have been getting allegations of planning attacks to create animosity and thus a way of profitably hitting back. Its not worth important to understand the bureaucracy that the U.S government was able to get away with such a huge number loss of innocent lives. This might be at the expense of swarthy foreigners or indeed, the fellow citizens. This is a disaster everyone in the universe recalls but its worth saying politics defines all as a field that creates crisis and later looks for solution as part of the year calendar.

Then came the struggle against extremism where hateful ideology are sensible partially as a result of the decade long process of linking irrational thought to extreme action. This was formed in part through conspiracy panics. Thus, the U.S has moved from domestic terror to global foreign network, from a national concern to a global concern. The material consequence for this has been the determination by the U.S State Department that the sub-cultures of conspiracy and lack of the right information are the birth to terrorism.

One may argue it was revenge by the Middle East against the United States policies but still remember that the attack was not truly from Islams. Others may argue on political way of benefiting, where they claim of incompetence within the government operations but its not worth the suppression to control and avoid the attack. The FBI officials had earlier warnings of the attack but undermined agents investigation.

Peak oil was the major target behind the 911 bombings. In the absence of the bombing, the US government would not have been able to vigorously invade the Iraq and take control over their oil fields. This offers the U. S potential to monopolize the oil industry in the future since the oil fields are day by day drying up. This is by being the main producer of oil. The conspiracy in peak oil and 911 is inseparable. This in effect conspiracy brought about the fight against terrorism where the United States got an equal chance to use force and as a result secure its denomination in the globe as a whole. What a devolved mutation of a countrys superiority by taking military control over the Gulf region.

This revolves a lot more on facts. It can be shown through the use of clear evidence provided through the explanation of the activities that happened before the attack, during and after the attack.  A number of countries had earlier warned the US regarding the attack. Also, think of how the hijackings took place with the first one at 820 am and the final hijacking crashing at 1030 a.m. dont you see some slow reaction from the responsible authority with none of the planes scrambled for investigation. On legal requirements, a fighter plane is meant to be expeditiously sent for investigation once an aircraft whether accidentally or not moves off the flight plan.

Nor is the US response after 911 any better. There have been no efforts to arrest the man behind the incident yet the state knows its Osama Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistans two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Ladens extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 911. However, a US official said, significantly, that casting our objectives too narrowly risked a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr. Bin Laden was captured. The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that the goal has never been to get Bin Laden (AP, April 5 2002).The war against terrorism in the US is heavily used as a means to achieving even wider and broader strategic geographical and political objectives.

Through these further allegations, the government knew and all the planned attack lay on the most powerful command chain. As documented, it was clear that the officials topping the response commanding were all busy. They were working on other schedule during the attack and failed to adhere to their duties as decision-makers. This shows there was no one in charge, which is broadly day light lie from several leaders if not all. Or was it a defense stand down, since none of the US air defense system responded following the standard procedures to the aircrafts that were diverted. No one was also charged out of this. The pentagon hitting was just a scapegoat. There was no response even from the Air National Guard Unit that is mandated to defend the upper atmosphere of the nations capital.

This can also work through the use of un-doubtable facts that were laid on the table Consider the 2.3 trillion that Rumsfelds admitted on September 10 for the technical assistance was unaccounted to make sure that the attack took place. The Air ForceNORAD war games that meant to confuse all the air defenses on the bombing event. Interception is the mother of defense but in this case some of the fighter planes were nowhere in the region. They had been moved out of the region. This paved for the impossibility of making any interception in the course of the attack. The US allies had earlier communicated very specific warning, but all this was suppressed. In this case, the communication radars were composed of fake blips that helped to divert any interception.

Following the allegations of the Muslims and Mossad attack, the United States policies on anti-terrorism since the September 1 attacks have negatively impacted the Arabs and the Muslims. There were roughly twenty policies that were initiated and implemented in the first twelve months after the attack. Of this number fifteen of the policies heavily targeted the Muslims and the Arabs. These policies are not in the USA PARTRIOT Act, but they are an executive branch creation that includes In late October 2001,the State Department issued a classified cable imposing hold on all non- immigrant visa applications submitted by men aged eighteen  to fourty years from twenty six countries, most of them Arab and Muslim. This was subject to special security clearances that were subjected. This was even stricter in some countries like in Jordan where the then U.S Ambassador to Jordan announced that the visa application procedure were no longer approved in the country. The applications were being sent to Washington D.C for approval without any time limit imposed on the response. The ambassador stressed out that the rules were to be applicable in al the Arab states including Jordan.

In November 2001, the Justice Department announced to hold an interview over some 5,000 individuals who had migrated into the U.S on non- immigrant visas from the Arab and Muslim countries all the way back since January 2000. The Attorney General also later called a second round of interviews with 3000 people where the topic of these interviews was announced as subject to terrorist activity. On May 2002, Congress enacted the Enhanced Border Security and Entry Visa Reform Act. This involved the development of visas readable by use of machines. The 911 attack helped in the shaping of the foreign policy. While American interest in the Middle East region isnt motivated by the pursuit of fossil fuels alone, the historically complicated U.S. relationships with Iran, Iraq, and the Gulf States results on the common ground behind the oil supply and the oil prices in the market.

Since Standard Oils 1936 discovery of massive oil deposits in Saudi Arabia, ensuring access to the regions fossil fuels has been on Americas foreign policy agenda. The non communist world used to consume almost 40 of the oil from the Arab nations. With the oil motive, the U.S invaded Kuwait in 1990 due to the fuel challenges that the country was actually facing. There was also the OPEC oil boycott that took place in 1973 which was very powerful. The development of a policy paper for the M idle East is mainly dependent on the supply of oil to present.

 Since the 911 terrorist attacks, the entire world has been under the super power United States with the military peace missions. When the US attacked Afghanistan in some few months after the New York and Washington airliner attacks there were no resentments for the action taken from the other world. The intense sentiments of international sympathy after the al-Qaeda strike  and the many lives lost the sinking of billions of money and the shake in the economy internationally greatly struck peoples mind. This even grew more curiosity to the hitting back and the US military strike on Afghanistan. To many the view was worthwhile but to the US, this was economically driven. There was no evidence against Saddam Hussein and his involvement with the 911 attacks. Despite this, president George W Bush and his administration went ahead to invade Iraq. This is open hostility and an act of brutality which corrodes a countrys and dissipates its view. The key international players offered very little backing to the Bush administration that went ahead and invaded Iraq in March the year 2004. Those that backed Bush included China, NATO, United Nations, France, Russia, and Germany. The decision to go alone in the attack could have created fears about the superiority in the United State and its superpower. This was responded by many among the political analysts with comments like. The response of the world to the United States since the 911 has not only been, It is like a superpower, but also (that it is) throwing its weight around as such, said Juan Cole, history professor at the University of Michigan.

The Iraq invasion resulted to mixed reactions with countries working on counter attack to the diplomacy and the economic status of the U.S.  Belgium, France and Germany tried to establish an EU military apparatus outside of NATO. The venture however did not bear any fruits but failed. These included the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez who was delivering anti-American speeches as he travelled around the world. This was all in a bid to ease the influence from the United States to the Latin America by use of the oil resources.

Using the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, China and Russia tried fight the growing US influence in Central Asian countries. They called for the withdrawal of US forces from Uzbekistan and the U.S government, in the earlier year 2003 announced it would leave from Uzbekistan, arguing the countrys government was abusing the human rights. North Korea and Iran have been developing nuclear arms and Washington and some other powerful countries have been against the move.

The relation between United States has further deepened from post September age more so with Japan. Asia emerging power, India has also developed close ties with the U.S although their antagonism also exhibits for decades. Pakistan has also proven to be a crucial US partner in the war on terrorism. Gathering of efforts in a bid to counter terrorism the U.S with the help of Europe have intensely coordinated their intelligence and strong law enforcement to help fight terrorist.

The build up of huge defense budgets after years of cuts the Cold War were justifiable during the September 11 attacks. Extensive looming of foreign affairs and national security issues is intense than economic concern in every U.S presidential election. Americas allies receives a co operative stance and a great public support nonetheless. Foreign policy priority cumulatively, was viewed as the major task with nearly half of Republicans  and a majority of Americans  rating improved relations with U.S. allies as a top.

Foreign policy priorities were changed after the September 11 attack. The range of foreign policy attitudes holds sharp divergent views between the Democrats and the Republicans. The protecting of civic liberties and the balancing between fighting corruption, including the hold diverse views even to the root causes of the 911 attacks. Since late September 2001, the motivation of the 911 attacks are believed to might have resulted from the wrongdoing in dealings with other countries.

There were differing visions of the foreign policy goals in the long term from the different parties where protecting the Americans workers and combating terrorism was the Democrats view. They view both as equal in importance where as the foreign policy was viewed as the top priority. Combating terrorism was the top priority in comparison to the Republicans in their objectives. Traditional foreign policy took lesser priority in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, due to the domination of future concern over terrorist attacks.

The U.S. foreign policy since 911 has focused on improving the military and law and order capabilities to helping African countries. The delivery of basic services, economic development, democratization among others are believed by most Africans as the most important issues but has not been addressed. Increase in military aid has resulted as the new emphasis since 911 in that the United States has more dramatically than development aid.  The ongoing in the African continent and the failure to commit resources to humanitarian crises has encouraged African countries to adopt more draconian anti-terrorism laws.

Authoritarian rule have been experienced in the continent and such a focus on security for the process of democratization may not bode well as the continent is still in its beginning stages. Further, by using tougher anti-terrorism laws with more military aid to win battle for the minds and the hearts of Africans was doubtful. Its really hard to match the rhetoric governments policies linking terrorism, weak status and poverty. Then the war on Iraq declined these resources in the year 2002. The September attack was heavily condemned by every African state and the war on terrorism was endorsed publicly in America. The Afghanistan attack in October received full support from the African countries with the seeking of groups and people who terrorize citizens. This overshadowed all the Africans hope to take charge in the 21st century, since war on terror was the Americas top priorities leaving behind many of the African issues and this derailed many projects from funding.

American decision makers to focused their efforts to Central Asia and the Middle East calling for the channeling of all available diplomatic and financial resources. African leaders expressed concerns as early as a few months after the attacks. There were very little economic and political resources for the many issues facing Africa in that the United States increasingly interest with Central Asia, and increasingly with Iraq meant to do away with the continent.

The keen observers highlight of the US development assistance allocations recipient and what had been obvious since 911, turned virtual based on the new strategic concerns a new amount of disproportionate amounts of foreign aid to a new set of countries was received. This was not on the basis of democracy support nor based on need. This case especially was experienced in Sudan, Angola and Rwanda. Military Assistance since 911 and development assistance to the region has increased since 2001. Also, there has been increased military spending and preparedness.  African governments spending to assist to purchase weapons has also increased.

To a large extent, the American administration towards and Greater Middle East region was the growing commitment. Due to this commitment the US led an attack to overthrow the Iraqs Baath regime to promote an economical and political reform allover the region with a view to establishing a democracy in the spring of 2003. Little had this to do with political reform but to political stability. Changes to the previous US policy predicated the move on a profound and sharp change. Heated debates and at times bitter debates within the transatlantic community have resulted from this new policy with splits in the European Union and across the Atlantic. The new US policy nation-building, political reform, democracy promotion and development policies pave way to convening a conference to support it. A number of considerations took place where issues relating to the Greater Middle East were put into key consideration. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the role of third parties was also a special case handled. The distinguished group of Americans, Europeans and representatives of the Middle East and Mediterranean regions discussed these issues. A possibility for underscoring divisions and disagreements in the transatlantic cooperation was their view in a deep context.

In Europe, the American foreign policy was believed to have changed nothing with the American-Europe relationship. The continued economic relationship revisited the U.S.European Union political and strategic relationship. With the splitting of so much ink regarding the US and the Europeans relations after the many terror and war, their relation remains intact.

I argue that whatever was witnessed was a new fusion of culture and rationality, one that is increasingly shared across the political spectrum. Its through the people we believe and entrust on or the cultural milieu that produces them that they do about the dominant forms of rationality that are as enraptured with them as problems. They are portals into the contexts that problematize them. Through the conspiracy theories it is well demonstrated that trust, truth, and rationality are at the heart of the political context.