March 17, 2020

We learned resilience after 9/11. But it’s the wrong kind for combatting a virus.

By Joshua A. Geltzer and Carrie Cordero

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.

  • Congressional Testimony
    • June 4, 2020
    Hearing on the Crisis in Hong Kong: A Review of U.S. Policy Tools

    Submitted Written Testimony Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member Brown, Honorable Members of the Committee— It is an honor to be asked to testify to you today on an issue of critica...

    By Peter Harrell

  • Commentary
    • EUobserver
    • May 29, 2020
    China's post-Covid 19 'techno-nationalist' industrial policy

    While Covid-19 brings China one step closer to technology-perfected authoritarianism through improvised health apps and real-time surveillance, Europe is busy looking inward. ...

    By Rebecca Arcesati & Martijn Rasser

  • Podcast
    • May 29, 2020
    Hong Kong Crisis

    China imposed a national security law on Hong Kong to deter and punish what it calls “acts of secession or subversion.” Daniel Kliman, Senior Fellow and Director of the Asia-P...

    By Daniel Kliman

  • Commentary
    • National Endowment for Democracy
    • May 26, 2020
    Converging Chinese and Russian Disinformation Compounds Threat to Democracy

    In recent weeks the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) propaganda and disinformation blitz around COVID-19 has drawn increasing attention, and with good reason. In addition to pr...

    By Andrea Kendall-Taylor & David Shullman

View All Reports View All Articles & Multimedia