Posted on Dec 19, 2023
The 9/11 Parable: What Can Israel Learn from the United States’ Post-9/11 Counterterrorism Experience?
199K
136
31
61
61
0
In the wake of the horrific and devastating attacks by HAMAS against Israel, some have drawn comparisons, likening it Israel’s 9/11. The United States underwent a transformation of its counterterrorism strategies following 9/11. In much the same way, Israel may well now face the formidable challenge of reassessing its approach to counterterrorism following the October 7th terrorist attack.
What can Israel learn from the post-9/11 experience of the United States?
The evolution of U.S. counterterrorism policy in the post-9/11 era provides valuable insights for Israel in this moment. My research as part of a PhD dissertation into the development and evolution of U.S. counterterrorism policy during the 20 years following 9/11 revealed four distinct "profiles for policymakers engaging in counterterrorism: The Commander, The Prosecutor, The Negotiator, and The Doctor. Bush, Obama, and Trump respectively adopted the first three policymaker profiles. Notably, none of the post-9/11 U.S. presidents adopted The Doctor profile. Why?
The Doctor is the most complex of the four profiles to implement because it calls for the contemplation of the maximum amount of information with the most open decisionmaking mindset. A policymaker who is a “Doctor” relies on iteration to identify the root cause drivers of the terrorism threat and then develops a policy solution. The challenge with this policy approach is it takes time and, thereby, could be perceived as indecisive – a less preferable image for political leaders during a crisis. All the while, The Doctor must manage the need for closure in society regarding the terrorist event, which is extremely difficult particularly given the horrific nature of terrorism as we witnessed through HAMAS’ October 7th terrorist attack.
But if The Doctor can be effectively implemented, it holds the promise of decisively addressing the terrorism because any response would be based on more complete information than was available in the days and weeks following the terrorist attack. This is a critical difference between The Doctor and the other policy profiles because they tend to quickly and immediately move to closure often based on incomplete and even inaccurate information.
During the Bush Administration, we witnessed the negative effects and risks of reflexively bending to the immediate need for closure and making decisions based on incomplete and inaccurate information. My research categorized the Bush Administration as a “Commander” – aiming to swiftly resolve the crisis of 9/11 by responding based on the information available in the immediate aftermath but not the after-action review. Although this approach seemed to be the right path in the crisis moment given the horrific aftermath of 9/11, it proved less effective over time. Indeed, rapid decisions based on incomplete and inaccurate information – spanning from the Bush to Obama administrations – resulted in multiple conflicts that had the effect of reducing nation-state and regional stability – not enhancing it – as well as the proliferation, geographic expansion, and evolution of terrorist groups and their jihadist ideology.
The experience of the The Commander approach to counterterrorism suggests effective counterterrorism policy certainly includes curtailing the immediate threat – but goes beyond that.
Effective counterterrorism entails preventing the cancer of terrorism from expanding and destabilizing nation-states and regions. This why a “Doctor” is needed for counterterrorism. The Doctor treats the cancer (terrorism) but is simultaneously mindful of not killing the body (nation-state and regional stability).
Following the October 7 th attacks, adopting The Doctor would entail recognizing the cancer of Iran and its network of proxy organizations and addressing them systematically and precisely. It would also acknowledge that counterterrorism efforts must extend beyond the immediate response to prevent the emergence of new extremists. The Doctor would also not lose sight of opportunities to structurally change the context through measures such as normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel even in the face of the immediate crisis.
The United States and Israel should consider adopting The Doctor approach to counterterrorism at this pivotal moment to guard against re-learning the lessons of 9/11. Because it is through these lessons that a more stable future for the Middle East and beyond can be achieved.
Alex Gallo is the author of “Vetspective,” a RallyPoint series that discusses national security, foreign policy, politics, and society. He is a PhD candidate in the Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs at Leiden University and a fellow with George Mason University’s National Security Institute and the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. Alex is also an adjunct professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University and a US Army Veteran.
Follow him on Twitter at @AlexGalloCMP.
What can Israel learn from the post-9/11 experience of the United States?
The evolution of U.S. counterterrorism policy in the post-9/11 era provides valuable insights for Israel in this moment. My research as part of a PhD dissertation into the development and evolution of U.S. counterterrorism policy during the 20 years following 9/11 revealed four distinct "profiles for policymakers engaging in counterterrorism: The Commander, The Prosecutor, The Negotiator, and The Doctor. Bush, Obama, and Trump respectively adopted the first three policymaker profiles. Notably, none of the post-9/11 U.S. presidents adopted The Doctor profile. Why?
The Doctor is the most complex of the four profiles to implement because it calls for the contemplation of the maximum amount of information with the most open decisionmaking mindset. A policymaker who is a “Doctor” relies on iteration to identify the root cause drivers of the terrorism threat and then develops a policy solution. The challenge with this policy approach is it takes time and, thereby, could be perceived as indecisive – a less preferable image for political leaders during a crisis. All the while, The Doctor must manage the need for closure in society regarding the terrorist event, which is extremely difficult particularly given the horrific nature of terrorism as we witnessed through HAMAS’ October 7th terrorist attack.
But if The Doctor can be effectively implemented, it holds the promise of decisively addressing the terrorism because any response would be based on more complete information than was available in the days and weeks following the terrorist attack. This is a critical difference between The Doctor and the other policy profiles because they tend to quickly and immediately move to closure often based on incomplete and even inaccurate information.
During the Bush Administration, we witnessed the negative effects and risks of reflexively bending to the immediate need for closure and making decisions based on incomplete and inaccurate information. My research categorized the Bush Administration as a “Commander” – aiming to swiftly resolve the crisis of 9/11 by responding based on the information available in the immediate aftermath but not the after-action review. Although this approach seemed to be the right path in the crisis moment given the horrific aftermath of 9/11, it proved less effective over time. Indeed, rapid decisions based on incomplete and inaccurate information – spanning from the Bush to Obama administrations – resulted in multiple conflicts that had the effect of reducing nation-state and regional stability – not enhancing it – as well as the proliferation, geographic expansion, and evolution of terrorist groups and their jihadist ideology.
The experience of the The Commander approach to counterterrorism suggests effective counterterrorism policy certainly includes curtailing the immediate threat – but goes beyond that.
Effective counterterrorism entails preventing the cancer of terrorism from expanding and destabilizing nation-states and regions. This why a “Doctor” is needed for counterterrorism. The Doctor treats the cancer (terrorism) but is simultaneously mindful of not killing the body (nation-state and regional stability).
Following the October 7 th attacks, adopting The Doctor would entail recognizing the cancer of Iran and its network of proxy organizations and addressing them systematically and precisely. It would also acknowledge that counterterrorism efforts must extend beyond the immediate response to prevent the emergence of new extremists. The Doctor would also not lose sight of opportunities to structurally change the context through measures such as normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel even in the face of the immediate crisis.
The United States and Israel should consider adopting The Doctor approach to counterterrorism at this pivotal moment to guard against re-learning the lessons of 9/11. Because it is through these lessons that a more stable future for the Middle East and beyond can be achieved.
Alex Gallo is the author of “Vetspective,” a RallyPoint series that discusses national security, foreign policy, politics, and society. He is a PhD candidate in the Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs at Leiden University and a fellow with George Mason University’s National Security Institute and the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. Alex is also an adjunct professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University and a US Army Veteran.
Follow him on Twitter at @AlexGalloCMP.
International Relations
Government
National Security
Terrorism
Edited 12 mo ago
Posted 12 mo ago
Responses: 20
24
24
0
Kill the terrorists. Don't leave them alive to require housing and then negotions for their freedom
(24)
(0)
15
15
0
"Doctor" covers a broad spectrum of skills. Medical doctors are divided into many disciplines. Almost every organ and part of the body has its own specialist. While focusing on one or even several symptoms, another may kill the patient. (Forgive the personal note, but my brother died of undetected lung cancer last month, while a team of doctors focused on his heart, kidneys, and arterial system.) Then there are doctors of philosophy who all wrote dissertations, some plagiarized. In every case, doctors are easy prey for those who assume that doctors know everything. Or, as Thomas Sowell states it, we assume that those who are highly expert in one specific field of knowledge, know everything about everything. Sadly, many doctors agree. Thus, I'm not sure "doctor" is the term you were looking for.
In the case of terrorism, if we were to apply your concept of the doctor, we might be better served employing a doctor of psychiatry (with a specialty in criminal pathology). After all, terrorist more closely resemble criminals than anything else. Or possibly a veterinarian if you think like me and consider terrorists to be animals without any human qualities other than physical resemblance to human beings.
One last note for your consideration. We might do better if we actually began listening to terrorists and believing what they say. I grow weary of people ascribing motives to terrorists that contradict what they themselves say. While a doctor may attempt to study the terrorist and seek a cure, wouldn't they be far better off simply listening to what they say and believing them? Forget negotiation. Israel has tried that "cure" many times. They've ceded territory to the terrorists. Given them aid and refuge, all to elicit some compassion in return. The terrorists take whatever they are given, defile it, then attack.
During the late 18th and early 19th Century, Muslim pirates attacked American ships, stole their property, and enslaved their crews. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson traveled to Paris to meet a Muslim ambassador and asked why they did this. The US never made war on Muslim nations. The US didn't attempt to colonize them. The ambassador was surprised at their confusion. "The Koran gives us permission to do these things. You are infidels." And we and the Israelis are still infidels to be murdered and enslaved to this day. It's in the Koran. Read it and believe. That is how they will treat us and that is why.
With that assumption firmly fixed, now consider how to respond.
In the case of terrorism, if we were to apply your concept of the doctor, we might be better served employing a doctor of psychiatry (with a specialty in criminal pathology). After all, terrorist more closely resemble criminals than anything else. Or possibly a veterinarian if you think like me and consider terrorists to be animals without any human qualities other than physical resemblance to human beings.
One last note for your consideration. We might do better if we actually began listening to terrorists and believing what they say. I grow weary of people ascribing motives to terrorists that contradict what they themselves say. While a doctor may attempt to study the terrorist and seek a cure, wouldn't they be far better off simply listening to what they say and believing them? Forget negotiation. Israel has tried that "cure" many times. They've ceded territory to the terrorists. Given them aid and refuge, all to elicit some compassion in return. The terrorists take whatever they are given, defile it, then attack.
During the late 18th and early 19th Century, Muslim pirates attacked American ships, stole their property, and enslaved their crews. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson traveled to Paris to meet a Muslim ambassador and asked why they did this. The US never made war on Muslim nations. The US didn't attempt to colonize them. The ambassador was surprised at their confusion. "The Koran gives us permission to do these things. You are infidels." And we and the Israelis are still infidels to be murdered and enslaved to this day. It's in the Koran. Read it and believe. That is how they will treat us and that is why.
With that assumption firmly fixed, now consider how to respond.
(15)
(0)
Sgt Mervyn Russell
I agree with most of you, Kill them all. but, what does that make us? Are we just as criminal? Do you become what they are?
(0)
(0)
MAJ Ken Landgren
Concur. It is infinitely difficult to be a Doctor with over 1000 dead, women and kids raped, people murdered and tortured. Hamas knew what it was doing. It wanted to escalate the violence, thereby, making peace immeasurably difficult to attain.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
Good afternoon CPT Alex Gallo. Excellent post. Thank You for sharing this Sir. I don't think that Isreal can learn much from the US. But, I'm sure that the US has sent funds to the Gaza Strip already. :-<
(8)
(0)
PO2 Dean Wilder
WE DID .............................. HUMANITARY AID ...................... (aiding Israel's enemy)
(2)
(0)
PO3 Ron Cowher
Just get rid of them. Period. It wouldn't hurt to 'warn' their family member to not even think about terrorism.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google