To look at the front page of the New York Times of Tuesday, September 11th, 2001 is to reach back into another era – an era, in many ways, which doesn’t look very different to that of today.
The president was under pressure over the economy, there was violence in the Middle East and the New York Giants had lost to the Denver Broncos.
But even before many New Yorkers would have opened their newspaper on that clear, sunny September morning, America and the world had been changed forever.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What is the legacy of 9/11?
At 8.46am and 9.03am, two hijacked airliners were flown into the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Another jet was crashed into the Pentagon near Washington DC and a fourth was brought down in a field in Pennsylvania.
What had seemed unimaginable – an unprecedented terrorist attack on American soil, striking at the very heart of society and witnessed on television screens around the world – was a shock the country has still not absorbed.
Advertisement
The results of a recent USA Today/Gallup poll are astonishing. Some 60% of Americans say the attacks permanently changed the way the country lives, more than the number who felt that way on the tenth anniversary.
The youngest, and those who weren’t even born on September 11th, felt that impact the strongest of all.
More on 9/11 Attacks
Related Topics:
Twenty years on, the debate continues about how much America and the world was altered by the events of September 11th but in myriad ways, big and small, the scars of that day are still evident.
Image: It has been 20 years since the 9/11 attacks. Pic: AP
Endless War
Who would have thought that when the US launched airstrikes on Afghanistan within a month of September 11th that it would be almost 20 years before the last American troops would finally leave the country?
The initial aim of the invasion, ordered by US president George W Bush, was to crush al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, the terrorist group and its leader blamed for planning and carrying out the attacks, and deny them the base from which they had operated. Prime Minister Tony Blair was a key ally of the US in offering military support.
But Mr Bush had already told the US Congress and the American people that the country was engaged in a new type of military action that went far beyond a few targeted strikes against a single enemy.
The “war on terror” was born and it would not end, he said, “until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated”.
The war in Afghanistan became the longest in US history. Some 800,000 served there and nearly 2,500 died. More than 20,000 are listed as wounded – the true cost of psychological wounds is far higher.
Image: George W Bush in 2003 at the end of major operations in Iraq
The more than 400 UK service personnel who died in Afghanistan add to thousands of Afghan civilians, police and military personnel, aid workers and contractors over the 20 years.
While the war in Afghanistan enjoyed public support initially, that waned over the years, especially after the killing of bin Laden in 2011.
That the “war on terror” encompassed the far more controversial invasion of Iraq – in the supposed hunt for stocks of weapons of mass destruction that were never found – would cost a further 4,500 American military lives, some 179 British and 100,000 Iraqi. A million Americans served in Iraq.
Everywhere you look are remnants of the war. The prison camp at Guantanamo Bay just one we almost forget these days.
The pursuit of the “war on terror” would define American foreign policy and arguments rage about whether it was won or lost.
It is undeniable that the spectre of a repeat of September 11th, the fear of an attack on the homeland, has driven American actions abroad for far longer than anyone expected.
Air travel
Anyone who has flown into, out of or around the US in recent years will be familiar with those blue-uniformed custodians of the body scanner, the TSA.
Before September 11th, not only did the Transportation Security Administration not exist but airport security was a pale shadow of the operation we see today. Fewer than 10% of checked bags were screened back then.
The TSA was built from scratch within months and in direct response to the September 11th attacks. It is now a behemoth with a budget of $8bn and has undoubtedly made air travel safer.
The law that created it also mandated that all bags be screened, cockpit doors be reinforced and air marshals be put on planes.
If you can remember flying pre-2001, or if you watch an old film with an airport scene, it was a time of no lines at security, no need for a boarding pass to get to the departure gate and far less stress.
But as previously-unseen threats manifest, so too have security measures. Things that could be used as a weapon, like blades, were banned. Shoes had to be removed, a move that followed the failed shoe bomb attack in 2001, and electronics received extra screening.
Image: The TSA has become an ever-present part of air travel in the United States
The limit on liquids which could be used to make a bomb have been accepted, sometimes grudgingly, by passengers along with those growing queues and the need to arrive earlier at the airport.
While some success is obvious – 3,200 guns seized at airports last year, almost all loaded – much of the security infrastructure is hidden from view with vetting and background checks and behavioural analysis part of the system. This has also led to suspicions and complaints of racial profiling.
And like the booming business in trusted-traveller programmes – where passengers pay fees and disclose background information to bypass the checks – it has come at the cost of another big aspect of change in our post-September 11th world: privacy.
Surveillance and privacy
Just 45 days after the September 11th attacks, the Patriot Act was signed into law with the stated aim of tightening US national security.
It expanded the surveillance reach of law enforcement including permitting the tapping of international and domestic telephone lines. In essence, it made it easier for the US government to monitor US citizens.
Opponents say it was the birth of a “mass surveillance regime”, expanding powers to carry out electronic searches without court orders and property searches without someone’s consent or even knowledge.
In the years that followed, those programmes were expanded and supported by the Bush and Obama administrations and Congress.
The revelations of whistle-blower Edward Snowden in 2013 reverberated around the world, his allegations of the broad extent of the US National Security Agency’s efforts to gather data on a massive scale revealed the expansion of the power granted to the intelligence services.
Image: The revelations of Edward Snowden showed the extent of the US surveillance state. Pic: AP
Civil liberties groups began a fight against the scope of the laws arguing they undermined privacy rights and are, in some cases, unconstitutional.
But, as Congress quietly renewed many of the powers, public opinion remained broadly supportive of the intelligence services right to snoop in the name of national security.
A quarter of Americans, though, did say they had changed the way they used technology in the wake of the Snowden revelations.
Congress has now acted to rein in some of those powers and the more controversial data collection techniques have been abandoned.
But in an era when data is exploding, and with a greater awareness of transparency and privacy, the tension between civil liberties and national security is alive and well.
Anti-Muslim sentiment
In 2000, 12 anti-Muslim assaults were reported to the FBI in the US. In 2001, the number had leapt to 93. It has never returned to pre-2001 levels.
A decade and a half after September 11th, half of Muslims in the US said they found it more difficult to live in the country as a result of the attacks.
But it initially appeared the backlash against the Muslim community that everyone had feared could be averted.
Six days after the attack, President Bush visited a mosque in Washington and condemned harassment of the Muslim community. “The face of terror is not the truth faith of Islam,” he said. “That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace. They represent evil and war.”
Image: Roughly half of the US believes Islam is not part of ‘mainstream American society’. Pic: AP
Polls taken two months after September 11th showed 59% of Americans had a favourable view of Muslim Americans, up from the number before September 11th.
But in the years that followed, polls showed a growing suspicion of people of Middle Eastern descent and a growing number of Americans who associated Islam with violence.
Even though the Muslim population has grown in the years since September 11th, researchers say many Americans know little about Islam and that views about the Muslim community have divided along political lines.
A survey by Pew Research in 2007 found that half of Americans believe that Islam is “not part of mainstream American society”, but that view was held by 68% of Republicans and just 37% of Democrats.
American psyche and patriotism
It is one very visible testament to the impact of September 11th on every street in America
The flags that fly on porches and front lawns, the protocol of never leaving them there unlit after dark, gained an added meaning for many. There is also a greater suspicion of those who don’t fly the flag, who don’t wear their patriotism proudly in post September 11th America.
Millions of words have been written about the surge in patriotism after September 11th. President Bush harnessed the spirit, with a bullhorn in one hand and his arm around a firefighter at Ground Zero, to rally Americans around the flag.
It has often been said that the US military saw a surge in enlistment after September 11th. In fact, despite a surge in calls to recruiting centres, the increase in the number who actually signed up was negligible. In 2005, the US fell short of its annual recruitment goal.
But there is no doubt many of those who did enlist in 2001 and 2002 were motivated by a desire to seek revenge. And, after all, the US had not been actively engaged in an official war until the invasion of Afghanistan.
Bush’s exhortation that “you are either with us or against us” struck a chord.
Image: Patriotism soared after the attacks and has stayed around – as seen here on September 11th 2011. Pic: AP
In the immediate aftermath of September 11th, there was a surge in the number of people looking to volunteer for charities and donate blood. A similar rise in attendance was seen at churches.
When researchers looked at all of those numbers again nine months after September 11th, only the levels of patriotism remained as high.
This took root in American culture as even Hollywood focused on patriotism rather than violence.
And the overt reverence for the military and first responders and their service is an undoubted legacy of what Americans witnessed on September 11th.
Changed the world
While the ways in which September 11th changed America are unmistakable, the impact of those attacks around the globe is a varied picture of the subtle and brutal.
For the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, years of war and its terrible costs are a living embodiment of America’s reaction to the attack on home soil. The repercussions have been felt throughout their neighbours and beyond.
The loss of life of British military personnel, and those of other allied nations in those wars, are scars with which hundreds of families still live.
If few people in the broader population paid attention to the names of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden before September 11th, many countries have seen first-hand in the years since the devastation of the sort of attacks they inspire.
The world has also drawn lessons from the withdrawal from Afghanistan and whether the “war on terror” succeeded. Wherever we are in the world, even if it is something as minor as taking our belt off at airport security, the impacts of September 11th are with us.
Twenty years on
One third of all Americans alive today were children or hadn’t been born on September 11th 2001. Everyone else, as they always say, knows exactly where they were when it happened.
At the time many feared it was the beginning of a wave of such attacks but, for whatever combination of reasons, it hasn’t been. Americans have been protected, even if it has come at a cost.
But 9/11 shook the confidence of the world’s superpower and not even the passing of twenty years has fully restored that.
Donald Trump has announced he will be raising tariffs on imports of Canadian goods by an extra 10% because of an anti-tariff advert aired in Ontario.
The advert used the words of former US president Ronald Reagan to criticise US tariffs.
A furious Mr Trump on Friday cancelled “all trade negotiations” with Canada.
Doug Ford, Ontario’s premier, said he would pull the advert from Monday, but it continued to run over the weekend, including during the first World Series game between the Toronto Blue Jays and Los Angeles Dodgers.
Mr Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform: “Their Advertisement was to be taken down, IMMEDIATELY, but they let it run last night during the World Series, knowing that it was a FRAUD.
“Because of their serious misrepresentation of the facts, and hostile act, I am increasing the Tariff on Canada by 10% over and above what they are paying now.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:26
TV advert deepens trade rift between Trump and Canada
Mr Trump claimed the advert misrepresented the position of Mr Reagan, a two-term president and a beloved figure in the Republican Party.
Mr Reagan had used much of his 1987 address, featured in Ontario’s ad, spelling out the case against tariffs.
Mr Trump said the advert was intended to influence the US Supreme Court ahead of arguments scheduled for next month which could decide whether the president has the power to impose his sweeping tariffs.
It was not immediately clear when the 10% hike would come into effect, or whether it would apply to all Canadian goods.
Canada – which is America’s closest ally, and one of their biggest trading partners – has been hit hard by US tariffs, and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has been trying to work with Mr Trump to lower them.
Image: Mark Carney and Donald Trump. File pic: Reuters
More than three-quarters of Canadian exports go to the US, and nearly 3.6bn Canadian dollars (2.7bn US dollars) worth of goods and services cross the border daily.
Many Canadian products have been hit with a 35% tariff, while steel and aluminium face rates of 50%.
Energy products have a lower rate of 10%, while other goods covered by the US-Canada-Mexico Agreement are exempt. That trade agreement is slated for review.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
Mr Trump negotiated the deal in his first term but has since soured on it.
The US president and Mr Carney will both attend the ASEAN summit in Malaysia which started on Sunday, but Mr Trump has said he has no intention of meeting Mr Carney there.
The world’s largest aircraft carrier is steaming towards the Caribbean supported by the rest of its “carrier group” to add even more muscle to the US forces already threateningly close to Venezuela.
The question is simple – is this really all about President Trump‘s war on drugs in South America?
I doubt it. A sledgehammer to crack a nut isn’t even in it.
There are a few reasons to doubt the American government’s stated aim of wiping out these so-called “narco terrorist” gangs threatening the US from Venezuela, even after one takes out of the equation the sort of equipment the military is deploying – which isn’t what they would need for effective drug smuggling interdiction.
While the president acknowledges that the synthetic opioid fentanyl is a huge killer in the US (which it is) and is supplied by drug gangs (which it is), to blame Venezuela for fentanyl production is simply incorrect.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:20
Is Trump tackling cartels or trying to ‘control’ Venezuela?
Mexican cartels produce fentanyl with precursors largely supplied from China, and it is from Mexico – America’s neighbour – that the fentanyl is smuggled directly into the United States across its southern border.
Datawrapper
This content is provided by Datawrapper, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Datawrapper cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Datawrapper cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Datawrapper cookies for this session only.
The Mexican cartels are very proud of their business, and from my experience covering this story over the years, when the drugs cartels are proud of something, and it makes them a lot of money – which fentanyl does – they don’t share the market with anyone, and certainly not with Venezuela.
President Trump is right that Venezuela is now a large supplier of other illegal drugs, especially cocaine, but they come from countries like Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia, which are the largest producers of the coca leaf in the world (the coca leaf is what cocaine is made from).
Image: The world’s largest aircraft carrier USS Gerald R Ford. Pic: Reuters
Venezuela, which borders Colombia, is largely a transit country to the Caribbean in the same way that Ecuador, which also borders Colombia, is a transit country to the Pacific.
Image: Sailors work on a Venezuelan Navy patrol boat off the Caribbean coast. Pic: Reuters
Neither Venezuela nor Ecuador are significant drug producers.
The drugs enter Venezuela overland, primarily from Colombia, and then mainly leave the country from ports on the northern coast of the country – and these are the departure points of the boats the US government has recently targeted and destroyed, along with the crews on board.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:32
Hegseth: US forces strike ‘narco-terrorists’
President Trump claims these boats from Venezuela are heading to the United States, but in reality they are mainly heading to the nearby islands of Trinidad and Tobago, and from there they largely go to West Africa and Europe – mostly Spain and Portugal.
Drugs heading to America either pass through Mexico over the border into the US or are transported via the Pacific Ocean route through countries like Ecuador. In this instance, Venezuela isn’t involved.
It’s widely accepted the two most exported drugs from South America are cocaine and marijuana – and the volume of production is staggering.
But the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the US says that synthetic opioids like fentanyl are responsible for most overdose deaths there – and fentanyl is not produced in South America, whatever the president says.
So one can only conclude he is either mistaken and misinformed, or he has another motive. I suspect it is the latter, and that regime change in Venezuela is top of the list.
The US has announced it is sending an aircraft carrier to the waters off South America as it ramps up an operation to target alleged drug smuggling boats.
The Pentagon said in a statement that the USS Gerald R Ford would be deployed to the region, including the Caribbean Sea, to “bolster US capacity to detect, monitor, and disrupt illicit actors and activities that compromise the safety and prosperity of the United States homeland and our security in the Western Hemisphere”.
Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro told state media that the US was “inventing a new eternal war”.
The vessel is the US Navy’s largest aircraft carrier. It is currently deployed in the Mediterranean alongside three destroyers, and the group are expected to take around one week to make the journey.
There are already eight US Navy ships in the central and South American region, along with a nuclear-powered submarine, adding up to about 6,000 sailors and marines, according to officials.
It came as the US secretary of war claimed that six “narco-terrorists” had been killed in a strike on an alleged drug smuggling boat in the Caribbean Sea overnight.
Image: A still from footage purporting to show the boat seconds before the airstrike, posted by US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on X
Pete Hegseth said his military had bombed a vessel which he claimed was operated by Tren de Aragua – a Venezuelan gang that was designated a terror group by Washington in February.
Writing on X, he claimed that the boat was involved in “illicit narcotics smuggling” and was transiting along a “known narco-trafficking route” when it was struck during the night.
All six men on board the boat, which was in international waters, were killed and no US forces were harmed, he said.
Ten vessels have now been bombed in recent weeks, killing more than 40 people.
Mr Hegseth added: “If you are a narco-terrorist smuggling drugs in our hemisphere, we will treat you like we treat al Qaeda. Day or NIGHT, we will map your networks, track your people, hunt you down, and kill you.”
While he did not provide any evidence that the vessel was carrying drugs, he did share a 20-second video that appeared to show a boat being hit by a projectile before exploding.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:32
Footage of a previous US strike on a suspected drugs boat earlier this week
Speaking during a White House news conference last week, Donald Trump argued that the campaign would help tackle the US’s opioid crisis.
“Every boat that we knock out, we save 25,000 American lives. So every time you see a boat, and you feel badly you say, ‘Wow, that’s rough’. It is rough, but if you lose three people and save 25,000 people,” he said.
It’s a question that’s got more relevant – and more urgent – over the last 24 hours.
The US government has just deployed the world’s largest aircraft carrier and its associated battleships to the Caribbean, just off the coast of Venezuela.
So: what’s going on?
Well, on the face of it, it’s a drugs war. For weeks now, the Trump administration has been using the US military to “dismantle transnational criminal organisations and counter narco terrorism in the defence of the homeland”.
Basically: stopping the drugs supply into America.
Dealing with the demand might actually be more effective as a strategy, but that’s another story.
Donald Trump’s focus is to hit the supply countries and to hit them hard – and this is what that has looked like: drones and missiles taking out boats said to be carrying drugs from places like Venezuela into the US.
We can’t know for sure that these are drugs boats or if the people are guilty of anything, because the US government won’t tell us who the people are.
But alongside this, something bigger has been going on: a massive build-up of US troops in the Caribbean, over 6,000 sailors and marines are there.
Here’s the thing: an aircraft carrier is not remotely suited to stopping drug smuggling.
However, it is a vital element of any planned ground or air war.
Trump is focused on stopping the drugs, yes, but is there actually a wider objective here: regime change?
He has been clear in his belief in spheres of influence around the world – and his will and want to control and dominate the Western hemisphere.
Influence domination over Venezuela could fix the drug problem for sure, but much more too.
The world’s largest oil reserves? Yes, they’re in Venezuela.
On Thursday, appearing at a press conference with Mr Hegseth, Mr Trump said that it was necessary to kill the alleged smugglers, because if they were arrested they would only return to transport drugs “again and again and again”.
“They don’t fear that, they have no fear,” he told reporters.
The attacks at sea would soon be followed by operations on land against drug smuggling cartels, Mr Trump claimed.
“We’re going to kill them,” he added. “They’re going to be, like, dead.”
Some Democratic politicians have expressed concerns that the strikes risk dragging the US into a war with Venezuela because of their proximity to the South American country’s coast.
Others have condemned the attacks as extrajudicial killings that would not stand up in a court of law.
Jim Himes, a member of the House of Representatives, told CBS News earlier this month: “They are illegal killings because the notion that the United States – and this is what the administration says is their justification – is involved in an armed conflict with any drug dealers, any Venezuelan drug dealers, is ludicrous.”
He claimed that Congress had been told “nothing” about who was on the boats and how they were identified as a threat.