September 11 was a horribly tragic moment in our nation’s history and we must continue to honor and mourn its victims. Nonetheless, our government’s symbolic usage of this event, as a justification for many foreign and domestic policies, is seriously detrimental to the interests of both the American people and global security. Thus, while we should not forget September 11, it is absolutely necessary to move beyond our often myopic fixation with it. In the first instance, our elevation of September 11 to an act of war, analogous to those committed by states, is certainly not the most effective means of combating terrorism. Terrorist networks, in their very nature, are fundamentally different from national states, and must be combated accordingly. And despite the current administration’s talk of a post-9/11 era (a problematic term, in itself) as necessitating a fundamentally new approach to foreign policy, this approach—from the use of the word “war” to the act of invading state sponsors of terrorism—remains locked in an anachronistic era of inter-state relations. It would probably be much more effective to treat terrorism within the framework of global law enforcement, requiring a pooling of resources on the part of states rather than the traditional state action of war. Moreover, our September 11 fixation not only inadequately combats the real threat of terrorism but furthers the possibility of additional threats to human society. The domestic response of our government, like its foreign policy counterpart, represents, in many respects, not a new paradigm for a globally integrated world but a reassertion of the coercive apparatus of the modern state.

Fortunately, we are indeed finally beginning to move beyond September 11, as the decreased media focus on this year’s anniversary seems to suggest. In order to further this process, however, we need to radically reconceptualize our understanding of national and global security. We need to view terrorism as just one of many possible threats facing both our country and humanity, and not necessarily the greatest threat either. In this respect, projects like the Global Security Matrix put us on the right track, inasmuch as they help us view and assess multiple threats simultaneously and urge us to move from a national to a global notion of security. Of course, we can also take concrete political action by electing leaders who will implement more sensible policies regarding the threat of terrorism. Nonetheless, although these actions may help us move beyond our current fixation on September 11, the general problem of our country’s response is, at least in part, the product of deeper structural problems—namely, the continued existence of the modern nation-state coupled with a fundamentally new global system. Although terrorism is merely one of many threats to human beings, it is a much greater threat to the state, for it undermines its very basis for existence—the monopoly on violence (hence the attempt by the United States to reassert that monopoly in both the international and domestic arenas). Although this logic may be somewhat overly deterministic, I do believe it signals that the only way to adequately approach terrorism is to move beyond the modern states system. Until this is the case, the phenomenon of the American response to September 11 will likely be recurring.

I love the question should we forget 9/11 because at first it sounds like such an absurd question that shouldn’t be entertained, but we are simultaneously inclined to wonder why someone would ask it in the first place. That’s an indication we may gain something very important from considering it. It of course would be deplorable and indeed unwarranted to abandon sentiments of sadness for those who perished on 9/11. Furthermore it is unlikely and (perhaps) uncalled for to discard feelings of anger for those who carried out those atrocities. However I am convinced Americans by and large have come to replace those emotions with widespread fear, distrust and animosity towards larger groups of people who largely or wholly had nothing to do with terrorist acts against the U.S. Acting (ostensibly) in accordance with those ill feelings the American government has not only expanded its military presence to two nations where it has a vested national interest, but it has curtailed American citizen’s civil liberties. This argument has been made before and tends to divide people more or less along “party lines”. I believe this results from a misunderstanding (or lack of understanding) of the larger issue.

The truth is Osama bin Laden and the terrorist network he heads was and is a threat to American security. That complicated network is also a threat to people and states across the world who do not share their ideology. Accordingly the United States should have, and to an extent did, act in concert with many other nations. But the U.S. was the known hegemonic actor and its leading of the invasion was accepted at least in part for regrets of 9/11. The Taliban needed to be replaced with a legitimate government, Bin Laden needs to be brought to justice and al-Qaeda must be completely dismantled; but in the process of achieving those ends basic human rights must be secured, i.e. the maintenance of food supplies for the starving and general concern for civilian welfare. In the invasion of Afghanistan the American public thoughtlessly dismissed both in lieu of vindicating 9/11. This is just one example, obviously parallel issues apply for the U.S. decision to invade Iraq, U.S. operations in Iraq and the limitations of domestic civil liberties. I maintain that we (residents of America) have succumbed to replacing justifiable outrage at a select few for an indiscriminate hostility towards large groups of people. This replacement is evidentially dangerous for the global community as it can be and has been abused to further agendas deserving of critical scrutiny. It is apparent that if this is the only memory we are capable of having for 9/11 everyone would be better off if we did indeed forget.

Perhaps 911 was the incident that triggered my interest in International politics or International Relations. How do countries interact with each other? Who gets to decide whose problems should make the headlines and grab all the media attention? Why did the death of 2974 affect the world in more ways than say the murder of more than 800,000 who died in the Rwandan genocide? i feel like international relatios might give me a bettr insight at answering these questions.

Six ears have elapsed since that day yet people haven't moved on. We still feel its effect even in regular activities be it while boarding a plane where you have to throw away a brand new tude of face wash because it contains more than 100 ml of liquid or when you turn on the news and hear about the war in Iraq.

It is impossible to let go of a loss so big but it seems like holding on to the past is causing nothing but trouble. People should move on from 911 as there are bigger problems plageing the world today. There is the environment that needs to be saved, the millios of people suffering from aids who need a cure, countries that need basic infrastructure and children who need a future. While we wallop in teh sorrows of 911 these otehr issues are taking a rear seat. It is about time people stopped living in the past.

P.S. I haven't decided what I want to major in yet.

On the morning of September 11, 2007 I was watching CNN and I heard the reporter refer to the "sixth anniversary of 9/11." Honestly, I almost couldn't believe that it had been six years since the tragedy. I was in India when 9/11 happened and I remember my whole family watching the towers collapse on TV. My older sister had to fly to the US on the 28th and the most important decision my parents had to make at the time was whether to let her go. In the end, they decided they would. A neighbour told my mom she was a very "hard-hearted" mother for making that decision. Seeing my sister off at the airport was one of the most difficult moments of my life as I tried to battle the thought that I might never see her again. I guess my story just shows that even though my family was very remotely connected to 9/11, it still had a huge impact on us. I can probably not even imagine what families who actually lost their loved ones went through.

The question shouldn't be whether 9/11 should be remembered or forgotten. It is difficult to forget an event of that magnitude because it shocked the entire world. And yet, it does pale somewhat in comparison to the plight of those who continue to live under terror and lose their family members on a daily basis in places like Darfur. 9/11 has made us more aware of and sensitive to the miseries of the hundreds of thousands of people around the globe. We realize that we're not the first ones experiencing death, pain, and terror. We realize that we're not fighting death, pain, and terror alone. Many rightly argue that 9/11 has been used as a tool to spread greater violence in the Middle East. I feel that we should always remember 9/11, but do so for the right reasons. We should continue to empathize with those who suffer and not bring more violence and suffering to them.

My first thought is, what is the role of memory? In this case, we should be careful to call it “historical memory.” The complex context surrounding 9/11 pushes us to not just see it as a day of tragedy, but to place it in perspective. Analyzing “tragedy” and truth in the same moment, however, is not an easy task.

What an idealistic view. Historical memory is always caught up in complex forces that do not serve a greater good. Historical memory is most often a tool: to define group identity for political purposes, to incite people to action, and to justify means and ends. We have seen 9/11 become this sort of tool. 9/11 left the US with a national feeling of unjust victimization. The idea and feeling of victimization has justified retaliation, and the US took our own violence abroad to Afganistan and Iraq. To forget how the process worked, where it began, and the results, would be wrong. Twenty years from now, the world needs to be able to both learn from our (and others’) mistakes, and appreciate why and from where they came.

Does remembering September 11th do us harm? Arguably it already has—regrets about Afganistan, Iraq, and other issues are caught up in the memory of 9/11. Forgetting what happened, and what has happened since, would be a disservice to history.

Should we forget about 9/11? My response is absolutely not. However, remembering the history of it and misconstruing its importance as an excuse for aggressive foreign policy are two very different things. America has traditionally been immune from large scale attacks by her enemies due to the Atlantic and the Pacific presenting significant barriers to warfare. Although relations have been strained at times, for the better part of a century and a half terms with America’s only neighbors, Canada and Mexico, have been relatively amicable. However, increased globalization has shrunk the importance of this isolation, and 9/11 will be remembered as the first time America’s borders have failed to protect her from a large attack since the Civil War. This is significant, and has forced America to change its stance in global interactions: no longer is it the benevolent defender, swooping in from far off to save the day. 9/11 is solid proof that America is just as vulnerable as every other nation now.

However, what has transpired since then has been a disaster, and unfortunately 9/11’s legacy will be tied to this bungling. Insecure for the first time in recent history, America has lashed out with grandstanding and pre-emptive strikes. Not used to this newfound vulnerability, our current foreign policy seeks to retain the former immunity the only way we can: if the enemy can reach us now, then we must reach the enemy before they get us. This logic is paranoid, because it logically concludes with America seeking out enemies where perhaps none used to exist. 9/11 played right into the hand of the Project for the New American Century, by providing its founders and members in the current Presidential administration an excuse to exercise its belief in American global domination through strong military action. 9/11 should not be forgotten, because it was a tragic reminder of how the times have changed. Unfortunately, it will be remembered as the impetus for a misguided administration to undertake various foreign policies and wars that have largely angered and alienated the global community and given fodder to America’s rhetorical and actual enemies.

It’s pretty obvious to me that my life has been greatly influenced by “international relations,” and I am sure you all could point to times in your lives where decisions made somewhere in the realm of international relations affected you, so the decision was an organic one for me. I want to take this class to better be able to contextualize the international forces and happenings of today by studying the past. I also like Professor Der Derian’s approach to analyzing international relations through many lenses, such as the state, the system, and the individual. I think this is the only way to effectively study international relations and draw relevant conclusions about the current state of affairs. Lastly, I was really intrigued by Professor Der Derian’s claim that the need for recognition appears to drive international relations. I am not entirely sure if I agree with this, while I do see the importance of identity recognition, so I am looking forward to hearing more about this issue.

Now, after a much too lengthy (1 paragraph too long, to be exact) introduction, to get into the questions – should we forget 9/11 and/or should we move beyond 9/11? In response to the first question, my answer is a definite no. We should not forget 9/11 because it would be foolish to forget 9/11, just as it would be foolish to forget any tragedy that shapes a nation. For many college-aged people, 9/11 had a major impact on how we see the world and I am sure it impacted how many of us saw ourselves in it. At the same time, however, the constant “we will never forget” campaigns seem to be used in emotional ploys that seek to incite anger, instead of reflection and true contemplation about the consequences of 9/11. This relates to the more complex question – should we/ how do we move beyond 9/11? which I will explore now.

In answering this part of the question it is very important to recognize the difference between forgetting and moving beyond. Just to make it clear, moving beyond does not mean that Americans will stop grieving their losses or that they will miraculously forget what happened that day, but it does require that: (1) the US learns from the experiences of 9/11 to brace itself/introduce itself to the modern system of international relations and then take on a leadership role in that international system, (2) that policy should stop using emotionally based decisions to act rashly in world affairs and that the media should aid in this venture, and (3) that the US seriously needs to re-evaluate its national identity and its stance on human rights and civil liberties, both of which were damaged by legislation passed after 9/11.

The big-picture conclusion from the events of September 11th in terms of international relations is that states are not the only viable actors on the international scene anymore. The US had neglected this truth before, and seems to still have trouble reconciling the fact that non-state actors are relevant to war, as seen in the army’s inadequate training for non-traditional warfare in Iraq, but this will end in the near future. Thus, moving beyond 9/11 entails that the US learn the lessons of 9/11 about non-state actors, so as not to revert to neglecting this reality. This knowledge must inform foreign policy decisions as well as domestic ones relating to individual securities, since that is what was so greatly threatened by 9/11.

Further, as many of the other blogs have mentioned, leaders in the US should stop evoking the emotional trauma of 9/11 in order to prey on people’s fears and vulnerabilities and pass bad legislation. In order to run an effective country where everyone can fully participate, as enshrined by the Constitution, the media should not run emotional campaigns to frighten people, and the government should not condone such behavior. I recognize that this comes from an ideological perspective about US democracy, but it is that ideology which made this country great to begin with. In order to accomplish this goal of creating an informed populace, which has not resulted from 9/11, one would have to overhaul the methods used by the US government and the US media, such as sensationalism and sound bytes. Who can forget the melodramatic music played months after 9/11 on CNN while the words “America’s War on Terror” scrolled across the screen in a big, burly font? This was only effective in inspiring fear in the populace about 9/11, and later about Iraq.

This conceptualization of American values leads me directly to another point about moving beyond 9/11, which has a lot to do with American identity and human rights. In the brief film clip shown in the last class, the woman speaking from the podium said something along the lines of “we must not forget ourselves for those lost on September 11th,” and then continued to describe the various human rights violations the US has committed in the War on Terror as well as the curtailment of several civil liberties that should be dear to American’s hearts. While it is arguable that the US identity as a leader for human rights is very questionable, I still believe that it was the country most identified with leadership on human rights issues by the international community, before the actions taken following September 11th. It is a position I hope to see filled again someday by the US.

The US, government and people, therefore should continue to move beyond 9/11 by reversing actions taken in the wake of 9/11 that severely limited the rights of prisoners taken into US custody and the civil liberties of the American people. One of these legislations, for example, redefines torture so narrowly that many actions taken against prisoners in US prisons have been deemed torture by international organizations like Amnesty International, but have not been pursued in the US courts. While we are on this track of thought, this intellectual debate about American identity and values in relation to human rights also merits a discussion about the greater identity of the United States. With this I mean to ponder the question: What do Americans value? What role does the US want to play internationally? What are US ideals and how do Americans identify?

In short, we (as in everyone) should not forget September 11th because it was an incredibly influential event that had massive repercussions internationally and domestically. We should, however, be able to move beyond 9/11, so that individuals can start thinking critically about the actions the US government is taking on their behalf. The only way to do this effectively is to move beyond the fear and terror and “we will never forget” campaigns to a new enlightenment that calls again for critical thinking, informed citizenry, and a re-commitment to human rights and civil liberties, all of which were negatively affected by the events following September 11th.

My initial reaction to Professor Der Derian's question was yes, we should forget about 9/11. Having experienced the event and its aftermath from Mexico, where I was living at the time, I definitely thought the American media portrayed 9/11 with a clear bias and turned their coverage of it into a Hollywood-style action movie called "The War on Terror", with clear-cut good guys and bad guys. Instead of initiating an open dialogue, the media preferred to manipulate the vulnerable fear many Americans felt after being attacked. The more I thought about it, however, I realised that 9/11 was the turning point when, in my opinion, Americans started to sacrifice their democratic rights and beliefs and essentially, allowed their government to grossly abuse the human rights of thousands of non-American citizens.

I think Americans should not forget about 9/11, if this will perpetually remind them from now on about the devastating results their government's actions have had in countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq (despite my belief that the images the major news corporations have allowed us to see hardly begin to touch upon the multitude and widespread consequences of America's invasions). Not only did the invasion of Iraq (which was defended by the American government as a response to 9/11) destabilise an entire region, kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians and ruin America's reputation as a fair and democratic country, but it also exponentially increased the number of frustrated and helpless young men and women willing to support terror in the name of justice and anti-Americanism. If this constant reminder will impel Americans to think more critically about their government's foreign policies and to be more willing to fiercely oppose irresponsible and unfair policies, I believe they wouldn't have to worry so much (and spend so much) on national security.

Upon receiving this assignment and processing this question, I reasoned that the dilemma in dealing with the tragic events of 911 is an issue of the perception and obligation of commemoration. People need to (yet often do not) separate living in the past and learning from the past. Instead of moving forward in aims of peace, memories of violence and the perception of the events on 911 perpetuate further violence; in a primitive sense, the reaction is comparable to schoolyard, or playground revenge. Violence becomes synonymous with action and justified as such, upholding a sense of duty to remember and fight for the victims of the terrorist attacks.

An article from the New York Times on September 11th illustrated the prevailing question of “whether the war in Iraq has made the United States safer or more vulnerable to terrorists.” I would even argue that another question prevails: whether the war in Iraq has made the United States more similar to the terrorists. There is a disturbing video online (http://www.current.tv/pods/controversy/PD04399) that demonstrates a torture technique called “water-boarding,” which is one of the methods used against terrorist suspects. The video at one point states that the aim is for torture to prevent terrorism. Which is worse? Does putting a government label on these methods of violence make them logical or acceptable? Does not this method of resolution simply perpetuate the problem? Likewise, are we better off constantly using 911 as our benchmark reference point, or should we move on?

Illustrated by the reading from Theories of International Relations, analyses such as that of Maja Zehfuss contend that the “White House has exploited the memory of ‘September 11’ to justify the curtailment of civil liberties at home, and an aggressive military response abroad,” (167). The politics of memory, as argued by postmodernists, has become a powerful tool in policy decision-making. People must be aware of policy actions and their affiliated interpretations; we must differentiate between honoring the victims and creating some semblance of peace in their memory. A time must come when we can remember and honor the tragedies of 911 without relying on that memory to justify current policies of vengeance and violence. We must commemorate the victims without becoming blinded by the remorse.

Why should we get beyond 9/11? This is the question we raised in class. I would like to differentiate a little: 9/11 is a marker in history. It has shaken the US and the Western World and has had massive and immediate consequences – large numbers of human casualties, a sudden awareness of the deficiencies of security measures, and a moment of incertitude on how to respond. It may be hard to evaluate these three factors all at once but I think they should not be forgotten: They present a reality, they are part of history and maybe even important in the sense that they introduced a new type of attack – not by a state, not by military means, not caused by a really determinable source. For these reasons it would be wrong to “forget” 9/11.

On another level however, maybe we actually need to get beyond 9/11. The event itself has been politically used to justify political actions that otherwise may have caused important domestic and international debates. 9/11 has sometimes been employed as an all-out event. If you disagree with the measures taken as a response to 9/11, you lack patriotism or underestimate the importance of security. Maybe – in this sense – 9/11 has kept people from debating more openly. Terrorism has seemed like the number one enemy to the US and the international system (and I am not saying it is not a threat) but it may not be the only one; it may not even be the most pressing one. Getting beyond 9/11 in this sense could mean: Including other challenges into the discussion and opening up a debate on how to meet these threats. Apart from that, today’s official response to 9/11 should not be to keep reminding the public that a constant threat exists but to meet this threat as effectively as possible (which apparently works if we look at intergovernmental cooperation in order to prevent future attacks from happening). 9/11 should be memorized for what it was. It should not be utilized politically but lead to better methods of prevention.