9/11 at 25: Lessons Learned, Lessons Forgotten

The meaning and impact of 9/11 is not confined to the catastrophic events that occurred on the fateful day of September 2001 when hijacked aircraft struck the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon, while another plane crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The horrifying terror attacks changed the very nature of national security, international relations, intelligence operations, aviation security and public’s perception of terrorism. On its 25th anniversary, the most significant question is not just “what happened,” but “what did it teach us about preparing for the future?”

The terror attacks revealed a lack of imagination on how vulnerabilities could be exploited by violent non-state actors. Since then, a concerted effort has been made to boost national security and avert a repeat of the disaster. But that is not to say that the terror threat has completely disappeared because there has been no terror attack of that scale. Terrorism has evolved and so must the institutions that have to respond to it.

Today’s terrorism scenario is more complex and tech-savvy than it was 25 years ago. Large central terrorist organisations still exist, but they have regional affiliates and decentralised networks, lone actors and vulnerable people affected by online propaganda. Violent extremist ideas can spread easily across borders. A person can be radicalised without ever coming into contact with a terrorist organisation or getting involved in a conflict zone. Meanwhile, political instability, poor governance, illicit economies and local grievances may create opportunities for extremist groups to survive and reorganise. But if one organisation is weakened, it does not necessarily mean that the threat has also weakened. Thus, counterterrorism efforts should shift its focus from the groups to the larger networks, technologies, environments and conditions that enable violent movements to regenerate. Groups such as al-Qaeda and Islamic State (ISIS) have adapted through affiliates in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Africa.

The first lesson of the post 9/11 era is the risk of complacency. For a number of years after a large-scale terrorist attack, the focus of political attention inevitably turns to other issues. Resources may run out, staff may turn to other opportunities, intelligence may diminish and institutional relationships may become ineffective. Any success can make counterterrorism vulnerable, since once a threat is averted, the public may not consider the preservation of the same capabilities. But terror is a periodic occurrence and for long stretches can be calm before the storm. The concept of preparedness should not start after an attack. Even if the threat seems less apparent, it will need continued investment in intelligence, law enforcement, emergency response, technological capacity, international cooperation and institutional expertise.

One of the hallmarks of the post-9/11 security landscape is technology. Improvements have been made in screening, intelligence analysis, communications, surveillance and data-processing, which have reinforced the capacity to detect and thwart terror threats. But technology is not the complete answer as improved technologies can also be exploited by the aggressor. A simple example of this technological transformation is drones. Although the concept is still thought of in military terms, the use of unmanned systems is becoming more common and affordable. Their availability represents new vulnerabilities in populations, symbolic places, transportation networks and critical infrastructure. The problem is not just building counter-drone gear; it is also building general awareness, trained operators, a proper chain of command and legal structures that can deal with the new unmanned threats that are emerging at a rapid pace. Violence remains severe in the Sahel, Somalia, Nigeria and parts of the Middle East, where al-Qaeda affiliates are exploiting regional instability.

Cyber capabilities also make another vulnerability. While a terror attack is occurring, digital access may be exploited to disrupt surveillance, communications, emergency services or public information. This vulnerability highlights the need for cyber-security and physical security to be more effective. The critical infrastructure systems are especially vulnerable because they are interdependent systems that include energy, water, transportation, communications, healthcare, finance and other essential services that are relied upon by modern societies. Interruption in one system can cause disruptions in other systems.

AI has added another vulnerable layer in this transformation. While AI can certainly help in gaining intelligence, recognise patterns, speed up threat detection and process huge amounts of information for governments. But in parallel, it can also decrease the technical and organisational constraints of relatively small groups or individuals. It can potentially support propaganda, communication and information processing, which otherwise needed more resources. Thus, AI and drones, cyber capabilities, biotechnology and other promising technologies may create threats that are not foreseen by traditional threat assessments. The right answer is not to dismiss technological innovation but not to rely on technology to solve all the problems. It is to create safeguards, oversight, testing and resilience in parallel with technological progress.

Layered security has become more critical due to the evolving threat landscape. There is no single agency, intelligence report, technological system, physical barrier or security measure that can provide absolute safeguarding. To be effective, prevention must employ multiple layers that complement each other: intelligence collection, information sharing, physical protection, cyber security, emergency preparedness, trained personnel, community participation and international cooperation. Communities are extremely important because they can see warning signs before any of the national institutions do. A security apparatus that relies on centralised agencies cannot be expected to capture all the information. A trust-based, responsible cooperation system can increase society’s capacity for identifying and preventing threats. In South Asia, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed remain significant concerns.

Security is not solely the responsibility of governments; it depends on a strong partnership between governments and the people. International cooperation is also important, as the threat of terrorism is not confined to state boundaries. Intelligence sharing, law-enforcement cooperation, financial monitoring, border security, diplomatic engagement and coordinated action can help to stop threats before they reach a country’s borders. International cooperation also helps in early detection of new extremist groups, tensions in different parts of the world, funds for terrorist groups and new methods of terrorism. Afghanistan remains important because Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) and al-Qaeda networks have operated amid prolonged instability.

Finally, the most important thing to learn from 9/11 is the lesson about the failure to imagine. The challenge in 2001 was about understanding how seemingly unrelated vulnerabilities could be fused together into an implausible and improbable attack. Twenty-five years later, the threats might have changed, but the principle is the same. New threats can emerge from advances in technology, digital communications, critical infrastructure, AI and cyber. Future adversaries could be working on drones and other technologies that are not known today. It is not possible to have a permanent state of alarm because priorities may become confused and actions taken may appear excessive.

For India, there is a special significance of the evolution of terrorism in the post-9/11 world. India has been suffering from terrorism supported by Pakistan, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir, where terror attacks, cross-border infiltration and radicalisation have been a recurring problem. In the last few years, there has also been a significant change in the global context of counterterrorism. With the US focusing more on strategic competition between great powers, the geostrategic importance of Pakistan has become more relevant. This has led to a complicated situation for India which cannot ignore the threat of terrorism.

From the perspective of New Delhi, it is important to understand that the past two and a half decades have taught that terrorism cannot be looked at only in terms of global wars or diplomatic priorities of superpowers. The terror threats emanating from South Asia need to be addressed with constant regional focus, diplomatic pressures, management of borders and effective counter-radicalisation efforts. Thus, India needs to strengthen its counterterrorism efforts, as well as develop new regional and global partnerships that take into account the understanding that terrorism still continues to be a security threat regardless of the change in global priorities. Multiple conflict zones face terrorism-related violence, demonstrating that the threat is geographically dispersed and constantly evolving.

Disclaimer: Views expressed are of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Statecraft Institute.