25 years of 9/11: The state of emergency is now the norm

I n Germany, we like to tell our children that lies have short legs. That means: It's better to tell the truth straight away, because lying won't get you very far. The world is full of examples that prove the opposite.

At least the older ones among us are all familiar with one of the most consequential examples: On February 5, 2003, the then US Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared before the United Nations Security Council, bringing with him satellite images, audio recordings of allegedly intercepted telephone calls and, for the sake of drama, a tiny vial of white powder, which was supposed to symbolize the amount of anthrax that would be needed to paralyze the American Congress.

"Every statement I make today is backed by solid sources. What we present to you here are facts and conclusions," Powell claimed, presenting one lie after another for 76 minutes about an alleged acute threat to the Western world from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. In order to prevent another 9/11, the logic goes, action must be taken, and immediately.

Powell lied, but at least this should be said in his defense: He probably believed his lies, at least in part, because various American secret services wanted him to believe them. “Saddam Hussein and his regime,” was Powell’s core message, “will stop at nothing.” Six weeks after Powell's speech, the first bombs were dropped on Baghdad. The second war of the “Global War on Terror,” declared by then US President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks, began.

This time without a mandate from the United Nations, but with a coalition of the willing initially from 48 countries. Germany was not one of them. But Afghanistan and Iraq were only the visible campaigns of a war, the consequences of which, since September 11, 2001, have changed not only the Middle East, but the entire international order and its rules of the game.

The taz is an independent, left-wing and opinionated daily newspaper. We have been arguing in our comments, essays and debate texts since the taz was founded in 1979. We often cannot and do not want to agree on an opinion. That's why you'll find some completely opposing positions here - all part of the very broad left-wing spectrum of opinions.

Much of what we perceive today as a polycrisis has its roots in the American trauma of that September morning when, under a clear blue sky, two planes were piloted first into the north and then into the south tower of the World Trade Center in quick succession. One could almost say: The murderous actions of the 19 al-Qaeda terrorists unfolded their true horror, especially in the years that followed - and still have an impact in many areas of our lives today, mostly without us being aware of the connection.

2,977 people died directly as a result of the attacks on September 11, 2001. In addition, according to current estimates, more than 9,000 people died from complications caused by the toxic smoke and dust from the collapsed towers. However, in order to understand the true tragedy of the day and the reactions it triggered, one must broaden our perspective, for example to the figures that the long-term project “The Cost of War” of the Watson School of International Affairs at the renowned Brown University has been continuously collecting for 25 years.

By his count, American wars in response to 9/11 have claimed more than 940,000 lives. In Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and the Philippines, 38 million people were displaced and had to seek refuge either at home or abroad. At the height of the War on Terror, the United States launched counterterrorism operations in 85 countries, including targeted killings, drone and air strikes.

In Joe Biden's last term as US President, there were still 78 countries. The purely financial costs of the Global War on Terror since 2001 are eight trillion, or $8,000,000,000,000. In addition, there are numerous human rights violations and the erosion of civil rights: long-term imprisonment without trial, torture, extensive surveillance, massive invasions of privacy.

Today, 100 million Americans are too young to remember anything about September 11th - but the Global War on Terror continues, in around 20 countries and still under the same "Authorization for Use of Military Force" (AUMF) that authorized the military operation in Afghanistan on September 14, 2001. What an irony: the legal basis for the attack survived the operation itself - even beyond the humiliating, hasty withdrawal of American and all Western troops from Afghanistan in August 2021.

And the Afghan war ended as it began: with the Taliban in power. Another bitter footnote in history: Only the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, one of Iran's strongest opponents and enemies, brought about by the USA, made it possible for Tehran to massively expand its regional influence. Iraq became a gateway for Iranian influence, while the collapse of state order and the American occupation created new spaces for the forces that later returned to Washington as sworn enemies - from Shiite militias to Sunni jihadists.

Thus, the war intended to eliminate terrorism itself helped to create new enemies and conflicts, which in turn served as justification for the continuation of the Global War on Terror. Looking back, the words of Bush's Vice President Dick Cheney, who became the actual crisis manager in the chaos immediately after the attacks and thus one of the most powerful representatives of this role, seem almost prophetic: "But we also have to work, if you will, on the dark side. [...]

Much of what needs to be done here will have to happen quietly and without public discussion […].” A modus operandi that has since become the rule from the exception. First act, then – perhaps – ask. Or not. To justify the overthrow of the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the secret services and the team around George W. Bush made a real effort - and to this day the American invasion is considered a fall from grace.

reported from Iraq from 2003 to 2005 and then led projects promoting independent media in the Middle East. She has been with the non-profit Hertie Foundation since 2025.

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, on the other hand, was kidnapped in a cloak-and-dagger operation and taken to the USA, without a mandate from the United Nations. The United States Congress was not consulted or even informed. 25 years after September 11th, the lies used to justify wars no longer have to seem plausible; in fact, they can be downright obvious. Like no other, US President Donald Trump has chosen lies as his preferred political tool.

Almost every day he declares that the Strait of Hormuz is open, the war against Iran is almost won, and the Iranian regime is prepared to make major concessions. One day he declares that the Iranian nuclear facilities have been completely destroyed, only to shortly afterwards use the nuclear threat from Iran to justify further acts of war. The United Nations Security Council, which Colin Powell was still trying to convince with his multimedia show, no longer interests anyone today.

The democratic control bodies at the national and international levels are hardly effective against the permanent state of emergency, which after September 11th shifted further and further from short-term crisis measures to permanently cemented blank checks. Parliaments, when asked at all, authorize powers that they can rarely take back later. Courts correct individual excesses but rarely question the underlying logic.

What began as a response to a specific threat has developed a dangerous momentum of its own and has slowly created a new normal. Seen in this light, Trump's style of government is a logical consequence of the erosion of democratic standards after September 11th. The prevention logic established by the Bush doctrine - we attack before we are attacked - still justifies wars and military actions 25 years later.

But Donald Trump radicalized them further and changed the focus. While George W. Bush argued with the claim to defend "the free world" - reflected in Berlin by saying that Germany's security would also be defended in the Hindu Kush - Trump has made national interest the decisive criterion and derives from this an almost universal claim to power, both internationally and at home: extraordinary threats justify extraordinary powers.

The kidnapping of Maduro from Venezuela fits into this pattern, as do Trump's erratic customs policy or the attacks on boats allegedly smuggling drugs in international waters: American interests are placed above international law. A ruler who, from the perspective of the US government, is illegitimate and criminal is declared a threat that can or must be eliminated.

Countries that threaten American prosperity through allegedly unfair trade practices may be sanctioned, threatened and humiliated. And what is needed against narco bosses is not a search with arrest warrants, but rather guided missiles and air strikes. Domestically, the militarization of immigration policy and the aggressive actions of ICE show how the powers of the state security apparatus are being expanded:

They can target anyone the government declares a threat. Anytime. This is also part of the sad legacy of September 11th: the state of emergency is no longer a state of emergency.