The attacks on the United States have provoked an inevitable outpouring of instant comment. In the world of public policy, instant reactions are almost invariably wrong. Policy framed in the immediate aftermath of a crisis is usually mistaken and has to be reconsidered later.
In terms of the US response to the atrocity itself, the US has a dilemma. It cannot act until it has evidence of the perpetrators and their supporters which will be persuasive for both American and international opinion - including key countries such as Saudi Arabia. Yet if it waits too long it will find that international support will erode. On balance it should move quickly and forcefully. The comments which follow, however, focus on the instant policy diagnoses being offered by commentators on a broader set of issues and suggest that considered reactions may well be quite different.
instant diagnosis:
America will be encouraged to become more isolationist.
considered reaction
Not an option. America is the one country in the world which is the front-line state for any and every international crisis.
America should opt for low tech defence, not high tech.
Not a choice. America has to pursue all means of self-protection including high tech missile defence.
America has the chance to revive weakened alliances such as NATO.
NATO can prove its worth once again. But longer term, America may want to reconfigure alliances to include Russia as a strategic partner and shed unreliable ‘allies’ such as France.
America should be less unilateralist and more supportive of UN and other international organisations.
International institutions and rules need a thorough shake-up, which only the US can lead.
There will be a new understanding and sympathy for Israel.
America may make extra efforts to separate out the different causes of tension over Palestine, Iraq and Iran, which have become unfortunately entwined. Time for rapprochement with Iran?
There will be an anti-Islam backlash.
Islam is not represented by its fundamentalist factions any more than Christian fundamentalists represent all of Christianity. Possibly this can constitute a turning point within the Islamic community against fundamentalism.
We are seeing a new type of cultural politics.
We should not be blind to the use of religion as a cover and tool for traditional power politics, whether it is in Northern Ireland or in the Middle East.
Non state actors such as Bin Laden are now as important as states.
Wrong. States nurture terrorist groups.
Attack the sources of despair in the world by limiting global market forces.
Wrong. The international framework must still encourage growth in trade and investment as the means to a better future for all.
Attack sources of despair by increasing international aid.
Wrong. The worst cases of poverty are associated with corrupt and undemocratic regimes. There needs to be a greater emphasis on democracy including in China.
Whether considered reactions will in fact follow the lines suggested is itself a guess at this stage. But there are good reasons why instant policy-making is error prone. It is usually based on incomplete facts. The risks of unintended consequences are higher. It is more likely to be based on sentiment than rationality.
The United States and its allies have to act quickly against whatever groups committed the attacks and against the states that have nurtured or given them refuge. But the United States needs to take its time in assessing the longer term consequences for its foreign and international policy and not be afraid to move radically, for example in reconfiguring alliance structures, or in overhauling international regimes, when considered judgements can be made. Nor should the United States and its allies become mesmerised by terrorism to the exclusion of containing more traditional threats. There are latent dangers of a very traditional sort – particularly in Asia – which could become much greater if they are seen to be taking their eyes off the ball.