Governor Moore acknowledges the immense human and financial cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, admitting that the outcomes were not as predicted or promised, particularly the Taliban's return to power in Afghanistan. He emphasizes that while the wars themselves may be viewed as unsuccessful, the service of those who fought was not in vain, highlighting the prevention of further attacks on US soil as a significant achievement.
Evolving Homeland Security Threats
Governor Moore outlines the current threat landscape, which includes remnants of terrorist groups, cyber attacks from state actors like China and Iran, and the increasing sophistication of AI. He stresses that the interconnected nature of these threats requires constant vigilance and a comprehensive understanding, as adversaries only need to succeed once.
The Case for Soft Power and Diplomacy
Governor Moore argues that while the US military is a powerful tool, it cannot and should not be expected to solve every problem. He advocates for a renewed emphasis on diplomacy, foreign aid, and soft power, contrasting this with China's strategic use of these tools. He suggests a redefinition of strength, moving from 'peace through strength' to 'strength through peace.'
Governor Moore: Maryland's Crime Reduction Success
Governor Wes Moore highlights significant reductions in violent crime and job growth in Maryland since his administration took office, attributing this success to pardoning past cannabis convictions and focusing on public safety and civil liberties. He notes a nearly 60% drop in violent crime and a homicide rate in Baltimore City not seen since before his birth.
Moore: Service as a Unifying Force
Governor Moore posits that 'service will save us' and proposes a 'service year option' for all high school graduates in Maryland, which has been implemented as the first state-wide program of its kind. This initiative aims to provide paid service opportunities in various sectors, helping young people find passion, build skills, and combat the workforce crisis, thereby fostering national unity amidst political divisiveness.
Schmidt: The Evolving Landscape of Terrorism
Eric Schmidt notes that 25 years after 9/11, foreign policy priorities have shifted to great power competition, yet terrorism remains a significant challenge. The threat has morphed into a more dispersed ecosystem with more terrorist organizations than on 9/11, with offshoots of groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS holding sway and posing complex challenges due to overlapping state interests and local grievances.
Hezbollah's Evolving Role and Iranian Influence
The Houthis are increasingly mirroring Hezbollah's past role as an Iranian proxy, building a web of non-state actors across regions like Iraq and Somalia. Meanwhile, Hezbollah itself is adapting, but its traditional strengths, including charismatic leadership and support networks, have been significantly degraded by Israeli actions, forcing a strategic shift.
The Narco-Terrorism Nexus in the Western Hemisphere
The US is increasingly applying counter-terrorism frameworks and military tactics to combat narco-trafficking networks in the Western Hemisphere, a shift from traditional law enforcement approaches. This reclassification, while acknowledging the extreme violence of cartels, raises concerns about the legal justification for US military strikes and the potential erosion of civil liberties.
Africa: The New Epicenter of Global Terrorism
Africa, particularly the Sahel and Horn of Africa, is a major hub for global terrorism, with groups like Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab evolving into international franchises. These groups exploit state fragility, adopt advanced technologies like drones, and control increasing territory, posing a significant threat that requires more than just military suppression.
Fonte: Shifting Sands of African Security
The security landscape in Africa, particularly the Sahel, is deteriorating due to the withdrawal of US and French support, the rise of ad hoc security arrangements, and the impact of coups. This has led to a capability gap, coordination issues, and a reliance on bilateral squabbles rather than unified regional responses, exacerbating the terrorism threat.
Will Jane: The Unregulated Frontier of Crypto and AI
Cryptocurrencies are woefully underregulated and used by nefarious actors for scams, terrorist activities, and evading sanctions. Simultaneously, AI is revolutionizing how terrorist and criminal groups rethink strategy, enabling lethal attacks with fewer resources, less labor, and potentially turning everyday items into weapons.
Geoff: The Perilous Echoes of the Iraq Invasion
The US invasion of Iraq was a disastrous counter-terrorism action, with implications that continue to reverberate and were incredibly damaging. The recognition within the counter-terrorism community at the time was that the situation would worsen, which it demonstrably did.
Geoff: The Rise of Far-Right Parties and Their Counter-Terrorism Philosophy
Far-right parties in Europe and Latin America often share a common philosophy centered on viewing migrants from Muslim countries as the core problem, advocating for their expulsion. Many of these parties also exhibit close ties to Russia and echo its talking points, while in Latin America, they promote a highly militarized approach to crime and migration.
Geoff: The Troubling Removal of Human Decision-Making from Violence
A deeply concerning frontier is the potential removal of human decision-making from acts of violence, where autonomous systems could make kill decisions, hunting targets for extended periods. This raises profound ethical questions about accountability and the future of warfare.
The Staggering Cost of Post-9/11 Wars
The wars initiated in the aftermath of 9/11, first in Afghanistan and then Iraq, have resulted in immense human and financial costs. The Cost of War Project estimates over 900,000 deaths directly from violence and millions more from resulting conditions, alongside over 7,000 US service member fatalities and tens of thousands wounded. The financial toll on the United States is estimated at around $8 trillion, though this figure may not fully capture all fiscal effects. The sheer scale of this expenditure and loss of life underscores a critical re-evaluation of these interventions. The long-term consequences continue to ripple through global stability and national budgets.
Treasury's Evolving Role in Economic Statecraft
Ben Harris explains that post-9/11, the Treasury Department underwent significant institutional changes, becoming a central player in economic statecraft. Key developments include the expansion of OFAC's remit to non-state actors, the creation of a modern financial compliance system requiring global institutions to screen and report, and Treasury's integration into the intelligence community. This shift empowered Treasury to wield economic tools, like sanctions, with unprecedented speed and scope, as demonstrated by the rapid implementation of the Russian oil price cap. The use of economic statecraft intensified dramatically, with sanctions increasing by approximately 1000% over two decades, all largely managed by Treasury.
Bill Golston: The Unprecedented Growth of Executive Power
Bill Golston identifies the most significant institutional change since 9/11 as the unprecedented growth of executive power. He explains this phenomenon is historically linked to times of conflict, where executive qualities are prioritized for security and victory. This trend was amplified by continuous warfare over the past 25 years. While Congress initially cooperated, passing measures like the AUMF and creating the Department of Homeland Security, the executive branch has accumulated over 130 grants of emergency power without sunset clauses. Furthermore, the influence of legal theories emphasizing the unitary executive, suggesting presidential war-making authority doesn't require congressional authorization, has persisted and impacted recent conflicts.
Initial Global Sympathy and Brief US-Iran Cooperation
Following the 9/11 attacks, the United States experienced unprecedented global sympathy, which even extended to adversaries like Iran. This led to a brief period of direct diplomatic engagement and tacit cooperation between the US and Iran, particularly in facilitating early operations in Afghanistan. This cooperation, however, was short-lived and ended in 2003. The narrative concludes by noting that this moment of potential engagement was missed, especially concerning the nuclear issue, as the US refused to engage diplomatically with Iran on suspension of enrichment.
Shifting Alliances and Regional Hedging
Traditional US allies in the Middle East, with the possible exception of Israel, are diversifying their relationships, not as a rejection of the US security umbrella, but as a strategic hedge. This diversification includes building economic ties with China and forming new agreements with countries like Pakistan and Turkey. Furthermore, these allies recognize the need to coexist with Iran and are seeking to build a different kind of relationship with it, aiming to avoid a destabilized, impoverished state that might seek to disrupt regional economic transformations. The conclusion is that these allies are actively building alternative structures to ensure they have options.
Historical Parallels of Crisis Response
Societies often respond to dire perceived threats with significant shifts in military strategy and domestic policy, as seen in WWI and WWII. The Lusitania sinking and Pearl Harbor, respectively, triggered profound changes in American outlook and actions, including increased global military presence and, in the case of WWII, the internment of Japanese Americans. These historical episodes demonstrate a pattern of societal spasm reactions to external threats, which can lead to repression and a temporary suspension of basic freedoms. The conclusion is that these historical precedents show a recurring tendency for societies to overreact in times of crisis.
US Basing Strategy Under Fire
The traditional US military strategy, reliant on an extensive global network of bases, is facing significant challenges. The war in Iran highlighted a lack of initial allied support, causing breaks in military planning. Furthermore, Iranian targeting of bases in the Gulf and Jordan forces regional countries to re-evaluate the benefits of hosting US forces, though viable alternatives like Chinese or Russian presence are not desired. Without these bases, the US military's ability to 'find, fix, and finish' targets globally is compromised.