Ever since the attacks of 9/11 shocked the nation, Americans have been urged by political leaders to learn resilience in the face of terrorism. That’s been critical to improving our ability to withstand such attacks when they occur and to show terrorists that their strategy won’t have the effects they desire. Now, we face our nation’s scariest moment since then: a virus that’s killed thousands around the world and that’s infecting thousands of Americans — and spreading. But the same resilience that we learned to show in the face of terrorism — centered on continuing with everyday life — isn’t strategic, wise or tough in the face of this new threat. It’s dangerous, foolish and selfish. At a pivotal moment for slowing the spread of coronavirus on U.S. soil, Americans need to learn a new kind of resilience that’s the opposite of what they’ve spent 20 years cultivating — and fast.
It was soon after 9/11 that Americans were first exhorted not to let the devastating attacks of that day interfere with ordinary life. Within weeks, President George W. Bush was encouraging Americans “to go about their lives, to fly on airplanes, to travel, to go to work.” He was right: Once the federal government felt confident that no second wave of al-Qaeda attacks was imminent, it was critical to America’s economy, society and collective psychology not to let the tragedy bring a superpower to a standstill. Showing national resilience in the face of terrorist attacks actually counters the effectiveness of those attacks: Terrorism is inherently a strategy of provocation, and standing tough afterward actually thwarts terrorists’ very objectives. We’ve both worked on counterterrorism in the U.S. government — one in the year before and decade after 9/11 at the Justice Department and Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the other for much of the last decade at the Justice Department and National Security Council — and we both believe strongly in the value of building resilience in the face of terrorism.
Read the full article in The Washington Post.
More from CNAS
CommentaryWhen and Why China Might—or Might Not—Attack Taiwan
Washington should continue to emphasize to Beijing the costs of aggression and the value of the status quo for China, the region, and the world...
By Jacob Stokes
VideoWhy China’s eventual aims with Taiwan could have a major global financial and economic impact
On CNBC’s Worldwide Exchange, Martijn Rasser discusses the rise in tensions between China and Taiwan, potential responses by the U.S. and G-7 countries, and whether Beijing co...
By Martijn Rasser
CommentaryChina and Russia’s Dangerous Convergence
Any effort to address either Russia’s or China’s destabilizing behavior must now account for the two countries’ deepening partnership....
By Andrea Kendall-Taylor & David Shullman
VideoUS monitors Beijing interest in global microchip market
Martijn Rasser offers insights to Fox News on how semiconductor shortage intensifies US-China tensions. Watch the full conversation on Fox News....
By Martijn Rasser