Foreign policy of the U.S. after 9/11

September 11 was said to have "defined" even "transformed" the Bush presidency. It seemed forgotten that Bush had come into office with little interest in and even less knowledge of international affairs. while he admitted during his election campaign, 'I'm not going to play like I've been a person who's spent hours involved with foreign policy."(Not even hours) since 9/11 he has as huge foreign policy as possible. (Huberman, 2003, p. xii). On the other hand, within a year, Bush –who as a candidate had said the U.S. should be "humble", presented his dramatic choice to the world, his message was clear: the glob had changed and America would fight back (Albright, 2003, 155). The military intervention that the U.S. led in Afghanistan, scattering al Qaeda and toppling the Taliban reinforced that message. As Albright says (2003) the next steps include: military action to prevent Al Qaeda from finding sanctuary across the Afghan border in Pakistan; then political action to build democratic institutions throughout Afghanistan and ensure that radical elements would not reestablish a foothold there. And third step was enlisting the help of Afghanistan's neighbors-including Iran, Pakistan, and the Muslim countries of central Asia- to forge the most powerful possible coalition against al Qaeda.
Clearly, the goal would be to 1) destroy Bin Laden's network, 2) isolate the rest, and 3) prevent it from putting down new roots.
In 2002 Bush adapted an approach which had unwanted effects. In his state of the union address Bush focused not on the nation-building in Afghanistan, but on the so-called "axis of evil"-Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. It seems after 9/11 the U.S. began to exercise its power, particularly in the Middle East to "redraw the map" in its own perceived interests. September 11 brought to the force the most aggressive' right-wing elements in the defense and foreign-policy apparatus-those who believed the U.S. should freely impose her power.

To achieve these goals, division of budget changed completely; War handed Bush a virtual blank check. Old glory was printed in the cover of Bush's first post-9/11 budget proposal and it was all billed as a vital to national security-from budget-busting tax cuts, attacks on unions, oil-drilling in Alaska national wildlife refuge, and a massive military spending spree to an enormous expansion of presidential powers and broad curtailments of Americans ' civil liberties. the president emphasized on America's unilateral intention to maintain "military strength beyond challenge". After 9/11, in 2002, the U.S. military budget was larger than the world's next fifteen largest combined. Its one-year defense spending increase alone was larger than the entire military budget of Britain or Russia (Albright, 2003, 156). To go with their out of control military buildup, U.S. adapted a national security doctrine that was radical in its assertion of U.S. prerogatives. In his national security strategy, the president asserted the right to attack foreign nations, even in absence of an imminent threat; if the U.S. just suspects that anyone might one day take an action against her.
Thus their intention was clear; they decided to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein, with or without the cooperation or approval of the U.N. or approval of their closest allies. Destroying Saddam's regime, which was told threatened U.S., was a sudden and urgent action which has done by an extravagant extrapolation of the war on terror. To achieve his goal, the president asked every country to oppose Al Qaeda, although many countries hate terrorism but they were reluctant to be with the United States. Bush's policies and his public diplomacy of describing Iraq and al Qaeda as two aspects of the same threat led many Americans to think definitely that Saddam had been behind the 9/11.

But the tip is that the motives of the U.S. in fighting terror, after 9/11, are not considered sincere. Many people , and not only in Muslims societies, believe that America's real aim are to control oil, defeat Muslims, advance the interest of Israel, and dominate the world (Albright, 2003, 159). By these policies after the 9/11 public opinion became more negative; While in the week after 9/11 public opinions was overwhelmingly sympathetic to the U.S. , within two years, a far different picture had emerge; Majorities in many Muslim countries feared that the U.S. was planning to attack them.
As a conclusion it should be said that Bush's foreign policy led America from 9/11 to invasion some suspicious countries. U.S. also accused some countries which opposed to fighting terror such as Germany and French. All of these have been resulted in the split between Muslims and the United States, given new life to Al Qaeda, and made far more difficult the challenge of defeating international terror. Moreover, resentment and hostility toward U.S. even among the closest allies have been increased.
Fareed Zakaria argues that in the first two years of Bush administration, the U.S. reneged on more international treaties; the president asked congress to authorize a new generation of nuclear weapons to add to the already daunting arsenal of the United States. In fact, After 9/11 he rejected, or undermined the AMB Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the nuclear weapons comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the international criminal court, the convention on banning landmines, the U.N. conference on small arms, and the Kyoto accord on global warming (Huberman cited form Fareed Zakaria, 2003, p. 157) and this is a formula for international anarchy, not domestic security, because it could lead to spiral wars without end.
A major principle that can be used to describe the basis of the U.S. foreign policy is "better to be feared than loved", the American vision is a vision of perpetual war… it is a dismal dream, and an ignoble guide for American foreign policy.

Sources:
Albright, M. (2003). The mighty and the almighty, reflections on America, God, and world affairs. Harper.

Huberman, J. (2003). The Bush –hater's handbook. Nation books. New York.

“An empire of wealth” by John Steele Gordon (2004)

In the process of creation “empire of wealth”, the economy of the United States has experienced enormous bursts in 1800s.
Gordon tries to explain how the economy of the United States developed and change to a dynamic economy.
He begins the story from the mid 1800 when the federal government operated in deficit, the national debt increased and the treasury depleted.
In order to solving these problems, the government began to sell bonds and taxed all kind of property, rents, interests, salaries. Totally everything else was taxed as well. On the other hand, it began to printing money. The results of issuing fiat money were inflation and hoarding. In that condition congress established a system of nationally chartered banks which were allowed to issue banknotes. During the war despite the improvement of industry, in the south, most of the industries were destroyed as a result of war; the bonds and paper money issued by confederate became worthless, agriculture devastated, the cotton crop could not be exported.
With the end of the war and slavery, a new system of agriculture developed and the system of sharecropping arose. In that time the economy of south based on agriculture and extractive industry.
In The time between Civil War and world war, the American economy, changed profoundly, grew instantly and became more diversified. After the Civil War the economy of the union was a kind of unstable capitalism without regulation and regulators.
There was no central bank and mechanism to regulate the nation’s money supply. By 1900 there were many state-chartered banks which were small and financially weak. Gradually, the national banking act and the tax on banknotes issued by state-chartered banks, gave the country a uniform currency for the first time. In the following years industry and trading ameliorated; industry companies grew rapidly and railroads organized as corporations. The expansion of American railroads after Civil War was extraordinary; in fact United States established the largest railroad system in the world. Railroading became the country’s largest industry. Naturally just government could regulate this enormous industry.
Something else that influenced all sectors of economy was steel. Declining the cost of production of steel and its limitless using, enhanced the industrial power. Also, the American economy was increasingly fueled by oil. The expansion of standard oil affected the economic system profoundly.
Clearly, the growth of American industry changed the nature of American foreign trade. The United States became an exporter of agriculture and mineral products and manufactured goods. In 1900 United States exported locomotives, engines, rails, electrical machinery, wire, pipes, boilers and other goods. By 1907 American exports doubled and the United States enjoyed its prosperity.
In 1913 by the new Federal Reserve System, there was established a central bank that was the turning point in the economic history of the United States.
One of the features of United States was that the concept of primogeniture never had mean. The country prepared the condition for writers, artists, scholars and robber barons. The United States was a great cultural and intellectual power as it was an economic one.
The first years of the 20th century seemed as dawn of a new era of progress and prosperity. The country was advancing economically and socially as never before.
In fact Gordon focuses that most of the economic problems in the United States resulted from the Jeffersonian legacy of weak, and poorly regulated financial institutions-a The absence of a central bank caused many of the excessive booms and busts of the nineteenth century.
The story of “empire of wealth” is so entertaining and informative for understanding the trend of forming the robust economic system of the united state.

A New Republic by John Lukas, (2004)

Immigration of masses of people to United States was a determinant element in the character of the nature. In nineteen century huge numbers of people from British Isles, German, Scandinavia, Russia, Italy, Greek and other countries were immigrating to united stats. In the last years of nineteen century and in the First World War the rate of immigration grew.
Huge immigration had bilateral effects on Americans and immigrants.
Immigrants changed America; Immigration changed the religious and racial composition and America. One of the results of immigration was the transformation of American patriotism into nationalism. Immigration influenced the foreign policy. It Influenced on American life and culture from food to drink to music to movie industry. Even the pattern of Germanic education influenced American education.
America changed immigrants; the immigrants conformed to America and requirements of American life, they became Americanized. Americanization gave the exceptional pattern of behavior, speech and thought which made them different from non-Americans. Democratic nature of American system was something that immigrants found as an exceptional character of United States and tried to internalize that.
The influences of immigration on America and influences of America on immigrants made the nation with new men and women.

The two empires:
Until 1897 the British Empire was the greatest power in the earth. It was the largest empire in the history of the world. It had a quarter of the population of the world, it owned one fifth of all the land of globe, and its navy ruled most of the seas. British parliament, industry, sports, cloths, language were the most powerful ones the in glob. Those years were zenith of British power and British prestige.
During the years 1895 and 1898 between the relationship of Great Britain and the United States a revolution occurred. The alliance between United States and British in both world wars led to their victory and gradual abdication of the British Empire and continuing rise of American empire. The spirit of American imperialism was strengthening more and more. Eventually, by 1900 the idea of Pax Britannica replaced with the image of Pax Anglo-Americana.
The important point is the similarity of Great Britain and the United States. Americanization of the world was Anglicizing, somehow. English-speaking language and Protestantism were the most important elements that the two nations were in common.
On the other hand the conception of American and British Empire were different. While the dynamism and expansive sensation of the American empire were growing, the dynamism and expansion of British Empire began to decrease. The Americans were thinking about their manifest destiny while the British Empire was older than American one.
During the first decade of the new century England became more and more American. On one hand social distribution of power in both nations was the same and on the other hand their public culture was similar.
After the war in 1918 United States became the greatest power in the world. In fact the financial center of the world moved from London to New York. The president of the United States became a universally admired statesman of the world. In sum in the history of the United States the zenith of the American power was 1918. Another apogee of the United States power was in 1945.
By 1950 the democratic society moved to a bureaucratic one. It was bureaucracy that developed and institutionalized, that is why mass man replaced by organization man. Bureaucratization did not limited to government but a productive economy transited to an administrative economy. On the other hand all aspects of life including private lives were democratized.
Totally the nation which was created at the peak of the Modern Age became the representative of western civilization.

Imperial Grunts; the American Military on the Ground(2005) by Robert D.Kaplan

Robert Kaplan's Imperial Grunts is an examination of life on the ground for the American military in faraway lands. Kaplan begins whit describing Yemeni from the point of U.S. military source. He illustrates Yemeni as a conveniently chaotic in the heart of the Arabia. In that stovepipe bureaucracy, all of the power was in the hand of President Ali Abdullah Saleh and Americans was just tribe that Saleh trusted. Ali Muhsen Saleh was the second powerful man in Yemeni after Saleh, he controlled an armored division that protected the capital. Terrorism, in Yemeni was so common. People were aggressive, commercial-minded, and well-armed. Yemeni had more assault rifles and grenade in the world. Tribal kingdoms in Yemeni-in all cities- grew and created imperial and aristocracies.
The whole Yemeni summarized in four worlds:” family, village, tribe, guns-tinker, tailor, soldier, spy. By empowering aristocracies, internecine violence and civil wars grew and because of disorganization, soviet found Yemeni government easy to change and in 1990 south Yemeni state collapsed in the course of the worldwide dissolution. In any case something that existed in all Yemeni was tribal feuds and the problem was that how to manage such an emporium.
Also Kaplan gives a history of the role Special Forces have played in Colombia. The role of U.S. Army Special Forces expanded in Colombia. The army was better gauged in Colombia, which represented a severe form of social breakdown than Yemeni or anyplace in the Middle East. reliance on American techniques and weapons systems, and the relationships between American officers and their third world protégés, gave the U.S. the access it needed to train a third world army.
While the United States army special forces couldn’t reform the whole Colombia army, it could improve some of the host country’s elite units which could then project power into the FARC-controlled badlands. The training of foreign armies provided the green berets’ basic function. Yet military was the most respected institution in Colombia, a large percentage of Colombia than Yemeni was considered by American military to be injun country. Key here is the conclusion that American power can only be exercised in a sustained way through discreet relationships at provinces and tribes. Author explains about transparent humanitarian role for SF. The task that United States appeared to have in both Yemeni and Colombia was similar and it was similarly impossible to make countries out of places that were never meant to be countries.

Reaganite Realism Should Guide Foreign Policy -Richard V. Allen

Richard V. Allen as Reagan's first national security advisor explains Reagan's policies in his administration era. Allen believes that the mystery of Reagan's success is his believe in "having simple answers to complex question not to be simplistic". He argues that Regan tried to deal with foreign challenges and domestic struggles that have treated United States but there were some principals that Regan was regarding in his policies; first of all Regan did not believe in military power for strategic problems, Reagan had a plan, a grand strategy and at the same time he welcomed advisors'ideas and tried to learn from adversaries.
In Regan era as other administrations, United States had encountered with various foreign challenges especially Islamic terrorism. Allen explains how Regan acted in that critical situation. The foreign policy of the United States during Reagan administration was the strategy of "peace and strength".
As Allen cites Reagan brought the Cold War to a peaceful conclusion. He changed the policy of "détente" by the previous administrations- Nixon, Ford, and Carter- . In his new policy he focused on three fronts; decrease Soviet access to high technology and diminish their resources, including depressing the value of Soviet commodities on the world market; increase American defense expenditures to strengthen the U.S. negotiating position; and force the Soviets to devote more of their economic resources to defense and the most visible was the massive American military build-up.
Another Reagan's proposal was the Strategic Defense Initiative, he believed that defense prevented nuclear war. Reagan's supporters argued that SDI gave Reagan a stronger bargaining position.
In a policy which became known as the "Reagan doctrine", he supported anti-communism groups around the world. He found communism as a grotesque chapter in human history and he predicted that communism would collapse.
When Gorbachev ascended to power and offered to winding down the arms race, Reagan employed a skillful diplomacy and invited Gorbachev to peace. As a result of unique Reagan's policies, in 1988 the Soviets officially declared that they would no longer intervene in the affairs of allied states in Eastern Europe and also in 1989, their forces withdrew from Afghanistan. Some scholars believe that Reagan had made world safe from nuclear war.
Allen notices to the policies that Reagan had employed about Israel and Lebanon. When United States joined a unanimous U.N. Security Council Resolution and demanded that Israel withdraw from Lebanon, Reagan announced the formation of a new multinational force with France and Italy and defined a commission to "enabling the Lebanese Government to resume full sovereignty over its capital. As the president said his goal was just making it possible for the lawful authorities of Lebanon. As the result of Reagan's drastic diplomacy, according to an agreement, Lebanon and Israel ended the states of war and Israel began to withdraw from Lebanon.
About Persian Gulf, from my point of view, contrary to Allen view, Reagan's diplomacy was not fixed; it should be said that the main interest of the Reagan team regarding the Persian Gulf was landlocked Afghanistan which Soviet troops had entered in 1979 ,not Iran, or war, Reagan devoted resources to building up U.S military infrastructure in the Gulf. At first Iran remained on the back burner of the administration's policy concerns, in 1982 when Iranian troops invaded Iraq, it became obvious to Baghdad, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait that it was not possible to defeat Iran. Thus the official attention focused on the situation in the Persian Gulf. United States found that this condition threatened the stability of American allies in the region and they blamed Iran intransigence for its continuance. On the other hand U.S employed the policy of selling arms to Iran in order to forestall soviet political gains and American hostage in Lebanon. But after Iran-contra revelation United States engaged military in the Gulf against Iranian forces. Reagan's unstable policies toward Iran influenced Iran policy and in over all led to a loose of American prestige and influenced in the third world.
Totally Reagan era is evaluates as a good and moral period as I mentioned in dealing with foreign affairs, the administration was anti- communist, employed a foreign policy of "peace and strength" and played a major role in the end events of the Cold War. The collapse of the Soviet Union transformed the world from a bipolar to a unipolar military structure, providing America a unique "window of opportunity. Because of Reagan's policies and the results of them Reagan's presidency was known to many as the "Reagan Revolution,"

“Taming American power” by Stephen M. Walt

Stephen M. Walt notices to bilateral position of the United States as mightiest state in the whole world. On one hand its power is a source of pride and opportunity and gives it security and capacity to mold the world according to its interest and values, and on the hand, rest of the world find united states a big trouble and response to this power in the way that might threat the unique position of the united states and disable America to achieve its foreign policy goals and may eventually undermine its dominant position.
At first , the author explain the dominant global position of the united states and the process in which it used its power to mold the world according to its own interests and values since the end of the cold war. After cold war, presidents George H.W. Bush, William Clinton, and George W. Bush made American primacy with the motto of peace, prosperity, and justice. All of them wanted to create liberal –capitalist world order, while they applied different approaches; President George H.W. Bush and President Clinton followed this goal via multilateral institutions which had been created since 1845, but Bush administration found unilateralism more practical than multilateralism. They tried to increase U.S. power and influence to prevent the speared of weapons of mass destruction, to librated the world economy and to promote the core U.S. values of democracy and human rights.
United States is the only great power in modern history; it has the largest economy ( after world war II its share of global production is 50 percent, it is also more divers and self-sufficient than other economic powers) , overwhelming military supremacy (the U.S. defense expenditures is seven times larger than that of the china which is the number-two power) , institutional influence (U.S. plays a unique role in the most important global organizations such as WTO, IMF and world bank), dominant cultural and ideological impact (U.S. has a great soft power to shape preferences of others through the inherent attractiveness of U.S. culture, ideology , and institution) and even a favorable geopolitical position Clearly, with these positions, U.S. is the first in the order, importance, and authority.
Desire of primacy was the momentous goal of United States that it was trying for, before the cold war. In fact, collapse of the Soviet Union was the intended result of four decades of U.S. effort. Since then U.S. began to promote a favorable imbalance of power; for example it claimed that United States should maintain military capabilities large enough to discourage potential rivals from trying to compete. It prevented from spread of weapon particularly nuclear weapons while it remains the strongest conventional forces. Another example is that United States leaders always claimed to uphold democratic values and to promote United States ideals of democracy and human rights, while, after the end of the cold war, democracy and human rights became an invisible issue on the united sates foreign policy agenda.
Primacy does not protect U.S. from all dangers because it creates fear and resentment around the world. From a realist point of view, American position in the world alarms and angers others and U.S. will face suspicion and resentment, because other states are sensitive to the balance of power and when one state becomes stronger than the others they get uncomfortable, they find the super-power as a potential threat to the rest. According to constructivism, primacy is a danger for U.S. because other states respond to the physical power that the United States possesses, and to the policies it pursues and even to the ways US power is described an understood.
The fact is that the U.S. has abused its power and harmed other states which were not evil. “Conflicts of interests” is another thing that frightens other states, because each country has its own condition, history, resources, geographic location and…. Thus the interests of various states with various conditions may lead to conflicts of interests and as a result the most powerful state ignores or damages other states interests in the interest of itself. On the other hand it is not certain that how the United States will behave in future, maybe it will not remain benevolent and maybe it will become aggressive in the future. An other reason that causes countries feel uncomfortable is that even if United States does not want to use from its power against other states, its policies damage them because foreign policy has unintended consequences, mightier states have more freedom to action and more damage others even if they do not mean to do it. Therefore, due to these explanations, many countries are increasingly uncomfortable with United States primacy. Some others are opposed America, they created the concept of anti-Americanism. They found America as an evil which has immoral culture and society and suffers from various sorts of social ills..
History shows that United States damaged many states dramatically. North Korea and People’s Republic of china have experienced a long period of American hostility. U.S., also, waged war against Germany and Japan in World War II, killed huge number of people in each society, dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. United States intervened in Cuba, Mexico, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and elsewhere in order to protect its business interests. Anti-Americanism is the result of both previous and current global position which has created by United States policies.

But yet there are few countries seem willing to contort the United States directly. Their pro-Americanism arises from the fear that American culture is too attractive, they claim that U.S. political system is based on a set of universal principals of individual rights and human liberty.

Stephen M. Walt also, noticed that United States primacy does not prevent weaker states from challenging its power, provided that they can do so without threatening core U.S. interests .it means that states those want to do something against United States would seek to windows of opportunity because attacking U.S. directly led to an inevitable forceful U.S. response- the same thing that happened to al Qaeda after September 11-.
He considers to various strategies that states may employ to oppose United States primacy; states may response to super power by balancing power against the dominant states. Traditional balance-of-power theory argues that the material capabilities including population, economic wealth, military power, and natural resources should be distributed among states. In any case the countries that want to balance the distribution of power are trying to improve their position vis-à-vis the United States. Balancing can be done by mobilizing internal resources or by allying with others; “Soft balancing” (with others), “hard balancing” (on their own), “internal balancing” (through various asymmetric strategies) are the ways of balancing. Balking is another strategy that states can employ, in this strategy they ignore U.S. request. By binding they try to constrain US behavior within an overarching set of international institutions. Blackmail also can be an effective strategy in which blackmaker should harm U.S. interests or convince U.S leader.

After all it should be said United States still remains the dominant world power, but it must change its foreign policy and welcomes the benevolent use of its power to obtain more legitimacy.

review on "Who are we?" by Samuel Huntington, 2004

review on "Who are we? " by Samuel Huntington, 2004

In “WHO ARE WE?” Huntington has argued about some critical questions facing American national identity. Huntington argues about some elements which are threats for American consciousness; globalization, cosmopolitanism, immigration, sub nationalism, and anti-nationalism. Because of all these elements and without mentioning the word “American” it is possible to categorize “people those live in America” into various racial, religious, tribal, and ethnic groups. In the America the concept of “denationalization” or “cosmopolitan identity” are more meaningful than the statement “American national identity”.
The Huntington's thesis is that the core of American national identity is Anglo-protestant culture and political Creed of liberty and democracy which traced from peoples of the colonies and states in the last half of eighteen century. He argues that in the last years of 20th century some struggles weakened American identity; the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the ideology of multiculturalism, the wave of immigration from Latin America and Asia, and the Spanish-speaking immigrants.
He focuses on “immigration” and “American creed” as two key elements of American national identity and the important distinction between "settlers" and "immigrants". America is a nation of immigrants and political principles unify the diverse ethnicities produced by immigration. Thus these elements create partial identities.
“Racist nation” is another concept that is said to United States. Americans, historically, distinguished themselves from Indians, Blacks, Asians, and Mexicans. The root of this assumption is that, the founding fathers believed that the survival of republican government depended on high levels of racial, religious, and ethnic homogeneity. Because of this racial division, Anglo-Americans remained the dominant group. While the Anglo-Americans did not remain pure and joined by Irish, Italian, German, Jewish , and other Americans, the Anglo- protestant culture survived as a the paramount defining element of American identity. Protestant was shaper of American unique nation in seventeen, eighteen century and during nineteen century. One of the impacts of this protestant culture was individualism. On the other hand, because protestant was the religion of work, working became the principle of status. In the 1990s Americans remained people of work and identified themselves with their work more than others. Individually Americans should achieve to the results of hardworking and collectively they should create their unique promised land.
The surprising factoid is that descendants of the original settler peoples remained a majority of the population of the US until the middle of the twentieth century. It is not until a massive wave of new immigration began in the 1960s, that the original Anglo-Protestant stock became a minority over the subsequent 40 years. Americans repudiated their Anglo inheritance with the separation of church and state and their rejection of the class-based hierarchies. The result was a radically new nation based on a Universalist conception and open to anyone including millions of non-Anglo immigrants. While Americans defined their identity in opposition to Catholicism, newcomers changed America from a protestant country into a Christian country with protestant values. Therefore, the balance between Protestants and Catholics shifted over the years, but in overall, Americans identified themselves as Christians. Noticeably civil religion enables Americans to bring together their secular politics and their religious society.
As history demonstrates in the last years of twentieth century, there was nothing fixed about nations and nation-states. American nation became fragile. The Twentieth century was the century in which national identity dominated other identities and in which Americans were nationalist and patriotic began to fade in 1960s. In the later decades of the twentieth century cultural and political fragmentation has increased. It had some principal manifestations; 1) the popularity of multiculturalism and diversity and acceptance of racial, ethnic, gender, and other sub national identities instead of national identity. 2) Independents identity of immigrants. 3) Hispanization and the transformation of American into a bilingual, bicultural society.

If it is said that old American identity was faded and a new one is creating, it should be said four trends are shaping this new American identity. 1) The disappearance of ethnicity as a source of identity for white Americans 2) fading salience of racial identities 3) More influence of Hispanic community and trend toward a bilingual and bicultural Americas.
The results of all these changes were melting pots including Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish on one hand, English, Norwegian, Italian, Irish, German, and Russian on the other hand. Also, racism as a social and political construction was considered. Racial identities, in the twenty first century, are evolving in some ways; differences in socioeconomic status, individual multiracialism, weakening the importance of race rather than other elements of personal identity. In sum, at present, race still matters but it matters less in many parts of national life, except for those who found declining salience as a threat to the place of whites in America. Declining salience has created “white nativism” which has found it (Declining salience) a threat to white culture, language, and power.
September 11 was a turning point that changed the concept of American identity in 21 century. It was the beginning of a new era in which people define themselves in terms of culture and religion. Americans found Islam and Chinese nationalism as their enemies. In that condition religion became the most prominent element of their identity.
Now, some years after September 11, United States experiences the process of renewing the trends dominating pre-September 11. America as an open society welcomes the world and encourages racial, ethnic, and cultural identities. It is multiethnic, multicultural, and multiracial. On the other hand America is the superpower in the whole world in the 21 century. Cosmopolitanism an imperialism attempt to reduce social, political, and cultural differences between America and other societies, in spite of the fact, Anglo-protestant culture and religiosity identifies Americans.