The Psychology of US Foreign Policy in Post-9/11 Era: Fear, Security, and Moral Justification

Abstract

The global order and the American comfort factor in international relations came to a halt with the terrorist attack of 9/11. The American reaction has been studied from a strategic and geopolitical viewpoint. However, the psychological forces that drove decision makers during this period are less studied. After 9/11, the US went out in a largely moral direction because there was a collective fear, a greater awareness of death, and a feeling of moral absolution. It investigates the emotional and cognitive impulses behind it. In addition, these factors combine to legitimate preemptive warfare. Applying Terror Management Theory (TMT) and political psychology knowledge can be used to understand post 9/11 behavior. It will use qualitative content analysis of presidential speeches, policy documents. There are three patterns revealed here. The attacks made people feel insecure, which enhanced worst-case thinking instead of rational and evidence-based risk assessment and response. The second instance of moral framing, specifically the moral framing of the conflict as between “good” and “evil”, allows the framing of controversial acts, like the violation of state sovereignty, as moral imperatives. The execs chose the same option based on the same assumption, marginalizing other kinds of intelligence. The study reveals that the US foreign policy during this period was affected by the wish for safety, certainty and meaning on the part of policy makers. Awareness of this is essential to prevent policy overreaction due more to psycho-emotional chaos than to rational long-term strategic thinking.