Marking 25 years since Sept. 11 with 'All the Presidents' Wars' and 'Scattered Steel'

Peter Bergen and Steve Inskeep discuss the post-9/11 trend of expanding presidential war powers, highlighting how presidents have increasingly bypassed traditional checks on military action and how changes in U.S. military structure and strategy insulate both the public and lawmakers from the costs and consequences of war.

Presidents Bypass Traditional Military Action Requirements Post-9/11

Post-9/11 Military Action in Afghanistan Met Benchmarks: Congressional Approval, Public Support, Nato Allies, UN Resolution, Establishing a Baseline For Future Conflicts

After the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush pursued military action in Afghanistan that satisfied all traditional requirements for U.S. war efforts. There was an imminent threat, explicit congressional authorization, a UN resolution supporting the right to self-defense, and collective backing from all NATO allies under Article 5. This moment set a baseline: future conflicts, in theory, should meet similar benchmarks to justify military action.

Iraq War Under Bush Marked Erosion of These Requirements; False Imminent Threat Claim, Minimal NATO Support Beyond Britain, Public Approval Later Declined

Bergen points out that the 2003 Iraq War marked a significant erosion of these standards. The claim of an imminent threat was false, and there was no UN resolution in support of the invasion. NATO support dwindled to essentially only Britain, though Bush still secured a strong congressional vote, reflecting initial strong public approval (75 percent support at the outset). However, this support did not last, highlighting the fragility of public buy-in when key justifications are absent or misleading.

Obama's Libya Intervention Lacked Congressional Authorization and Post-Conflict Planning

President Obama continued this trend during the 2011 Libya intervention. While there was a UN resolution and some NATO support, Obama never sought or received congressional authorization for military action. According to Bergen, Obama later described his failure to plan for post-conflict Libya as his greatest mistake, emphasizing how executive action increasingly neglected essential safeguards and planning.

Iran War Exemplifies Executive Overreach, Lacks Safeguards, and Receives 41% Public Support

The most extreme case cited is the Iran War, which went ahead lacking every major safeguard: there was no imminent threat, no congressional authorization, no NATO or UN backing, and public support was only 41 percent—the lowest since wartime polling began. Bergen underscores that, despite the traditional requirements, presidents have evolved to the point where they can increasingly bypass these constraints altogether.

Modern Military Operations Foster Presidential Unilateralism By Reducing Public Awareness and Sacrifice

"Small Footprint Strategy Minimizes U.S. Casualties and Public Concern"

Modern strategies, as seen in the anti-ISIS campaign, deliberately minimize American casualties and financial cost by adopting a “go light and go long” approach. In these operations, local forces such as the Iraqis and Syrians do most of the fighting and dying, while American involvement remains limited to support and air power. This minimizes the impact on U.S. tro ...

Peter Bergen argues that the diminishing role of Congress in national security matters has deeply undercut public participation and oversight in the United States' military actions and decisions.

Congress Has Abdicated Its Role In Authorizing Military Action and Representing Public Interests

Bergen points out that the U.S. founders specifically designed the government to prevent a single individual—a king-like figure—from taking the nation to war unilaterally. This system required Congress to play an integral role in authorizing military action, ensuring that military decisions had broader public backing and oversight.

Founders Prevented Unilateral War; Modern Presidents Allow It

Historically, the founders’ intention was to make sure no president could engage in military action without congressional consent. Bergen highlights that the current situation, in which modern presidents frequently initiate military action without Congress’s direct approval, stands in stark contrast to the founders’ vision.

Legislative Retreat Reduces Public Voice in Military Decisions

As Congress increasingly steps back from its constitutional responsibility to authorize and oversee military actions, Bergen asserts that the American public’s voice in these matters has eroded. Congressional retreat on national security issues directly diminishes the public’s ability to influence decisions that may send the country to war, determine military spending, or shape foreign policy strategy.

Restoring Congress's Role in National Security Decisions

Bergen calls for a return to the founders' model, in which Congress takes its responsibilities more seriously. By regaining its authority in national security matters, Congress would restore the public’s role and ensure greater democratic oversight of military decisions.

Americans Are Passive in Military Policy Decisions

Bergen links Congress’s withdrawal from national security decision-making to a broader decline in public engagement and influence over U.S. military policy.

9/11 Coverage Unified Public, Led To Military Actions Without Citizen Input

Following the 9/11 attacks, media coverage unified national sentiment and paved the way for significant military actions. Bergen suggests these ac ...

The aftermath of the September 11 attacks saw the United States invest heavily in defensive security, resulting in significant improvements in protection against foreign terrorist threats. However, these measures have also brought about a substantial reduction in privacy and freedom for citizens.

Defensive Security Investments Bolster U.S. Safety From Foreign Terrorist Attacks

New Post-9/11 Institutions: TSA, DHS as Largest Federal Agency Outside Pentagon, Tripled FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Forces Represent Unprecedented National Security Infrastructure

Peter Bergen notes that before 9/11, major security institutions such as the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not exist. The DHS is now the largest government agency outside the Pentagon, and the number of FBI-led joint terrorism task forces has tripled since 2001. These institutions form the backbone of an expanded and unprecedented national security infrastructure.

Intelligence Budget Quintupled Post-9/11, Boosting Surveillance and Preventing Large-Scale Attacks on American Soil

Bergen adds that the intelligence budget has increased fivefold since 9/11. This enormous expansion has allowed for enhanced surveillance and intelligence capabilities, playing a direct role in preventing large-scale terrorist attacks on American soil.

Only one Foreign Terrorist Attack by a Foreign Organization Has Occurred On American Territory Since 9-11; a 2019 Shooting in Pensacola by a Saudi Officer Killed Three Soldiers, Suggesting Effective Defensive Measures

As a result of these investments and expanded capabilities, Bergen observes that the U.S. is significantly safer from foreign terrorist attacks. Since 9/11, there has been only one attack on American territory by a foreign terrorist organization: the 2019 Pensacola shooting by a Saudi military officer, which killed three American soldiers. This record suggests that defensive measures have been highly effective.

Surveillance Tech Reduces Privacy and Freedom

Tech Firms Like Palantir Stem From Counterterrorism and now Track Movements Via Cameras and Facial Recognition

Bergen highlights that much of the surveillance technology now in use stemmed from the post-9/11 counterterrorism environment. Companies such as Palantir grew out of the need to analyze vast streams of intelli ...

Across the United States, salvaged steel from the ruins of the World Trade Center serves as a powerful medium for local memorials, transforming metal wreckage into sacred relics that invite communities to grieve, remember, and reflect.

Salvaged Steel Distributed As Sacred Religious Artifacts

After the September 11 attacks, the Port Authority retrieved select pieces of steel and placed them in a hangar at JFK airport, while 95–96% of the rest was recycled overseas. VIP tours of this steel were offered to military members, emergency management, and government officials—many described the hangar, adorned with a massive American flag and floor-laid steel, as a "very sacred space."

The Port Authority created a specialized archive team to curate from the mass of distressed artifacts. Decision-makers focused on beams that bore visible signs of twisting, warping, or other trauma from the attacks. Sam Holleran notes that this selection process mirrored themes of suffering and transformation found in Christian art, especially the depiction of tormented bodies in medieval and Renaissance paintings. The chosen steel thus became physical evidence of pain and endurance—a modern relic with a religious aura.

Communities across the nation sought pieces of the WTC steel for their own local memorials, especially ahead of the attack’s 10th anniversary. The Port Authority coordinated ceremonial distribution, often with the involvement of public officials and VIPs. Fire stations and nonprofits became favored recipients, creating community-based sites of mourning over placements in national institutions. This allowed local populations—sometimes from far-flung places—to lay hands on the artifacts, transforming abstract national grief into tactile, personal experience. In many locations, the steel has even been shaped into crosses and religious symbols, amplifying its status as a sacred object able to channel collective emotion.

Wtc Steel Distribution: Memorialization or Commercialization?

From the start, the Port Authority was acutely aware of the fragile line between memorial ...

Younger Generations Lack Direct 9-11 Memories, Inherit Transformed National Security State

Scott Detrow notes that, with the passage of 25 years since September 11, 2001, more adults in the United States now lack any direct memory of the attacks. Holleran observes that a new generation is emerging in which many of the patriotic narratives and emotional frameworks that dominated the years immediately following the attacks are beginning to fade. For these younger Americans, post-9-11 governance and the resulting national security state are simply the normal conditions of their lives. As a result, they are able to approach the events with fresh eyes, unconditioned by the lived experience of national trauma, and can consider memorialization with a focus on reflection rather than on flag-waving patriotism.

World Trade Center Steel Memorials Educate and Anchor Distant Communities

Detrow discusses how artist Sam Holleran has long been captivated by 9-11 memorials built with salvaged steel from the World Trade Center, such as a modest three-foot-tall steel piece standing outside a fire station in Virginia. Holleran points out that these steel memorials often appear as anonymous pieces of street furniture until people realize their origin, which delivers a moving and powerful impact.

Steel Memorials Transform 9-11 From a Television Event Into Tangible Relics, Fostering Emotional Connections to the Attacks and Lives Lost

Holleran highlights that even those who have forgotten, or never knew about the attacks, can approach the steel and sense that this unique, weathered, and twisted material has been through something significant. These memorials serve as tangible relics, turning the attacks from a distant, televised event into something physically and emotionally real.

Steel Beams Exhibit Attack's Intensity

Holleran describes how the deformation, weathering, and twisting of the steel beams physic ...