‘Never forget’: 25 years after 9/11

In New York City's 9/11 Memorial Museum, a quote from the Roman poet Virgil reminds visitors of the human cost of terrorism. Written in recovered World Trade Center steel, it honors the nearly 3,000 victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: "No day shall erase you from the memory of time."

While the world - and the United States - have greatly changed since 2001, this reminder is important, especially with the many ways, both visibly and less so, our lives have been shaped by this tragedy and others like it.

To get more context, we spoke with UCLA's Luwei Ying, an assistant professor of political science, who focuses on international relations through the lens of civil conflict and political violence.

How should we observe this 25th anniversary?

I think the most important thing is to remember the people rather than only the politics. Read the stories of victims, survivors, first responders, military families and communities affected by what followed. For people who want to learn more, the 9/11 Commission Report remains an important starting point because it explains both how the attacks occurred and the institutional failures that preceded them.

I would also encourage younger people to talk with people who remember that day firsthand. Twenty-five years is a long time, and we are reaching a point where an entire generation knows 9/11 only as history. Commemoration should involve both remembrance and learning.

What do you see as the legacy of these attacks?

9/11 was an immense human tragedy and a turning point in both American foreign and domestic policy. It brought terrorism to the center of public attention in the United States and around the world, and it fundamentally changed how governments, the public and scholars understood and responded to it.

In that sense, 9/11 did not invent terrorism but transformed it into one of the defining political and security concerns of the 21st century. It also triggered an enormous expansion in research on terrorism, building on important scholarship that had already begun.

Part of the federal government's response was to declare a "Global War on Terror," which continues to this day. What should people know about this campaign?

I would distinguish between the phrase "Global War on Terror," which has been used differently by different administrations, and the broader counterterrorism system that developed after 9/11. That system substantially strengthened intelligence, law-enforcement, homeland security and international counterterrorism capabilities, and it helped weaken organizations such as al-Qaida.

At the same time, the post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in enormous costs in human lives, displacement, public spending and veterans' health, as well as debates over civil liberties and the appropriate limits of military power. A serious assessment needs to acknowledge both the security achievements and the costs.

What do experts know about terrorism now that they didn't 25 years ago?

I would highlight four things I think are especially useful for the public to understand.

First, there is no single "terrorist profile" and no single pathway to radicalization. You cannot reliably tell who will become a terrorist from someone's appearance, background or a stereotypical profile.

Second, terrorist organizations are often highly strategic and adaptive. They are not simply irrational actors committing violence at random. They use violence in pursuit of political objectives, and they adjust their organizations, tactics, recruitment and propaganda in response to changing political conditions and government pressure. This is where much of my own research has focused.

Third, terrorism receives enormous media attention when it occurs in places such as the United States or Western Europe, but globally, terrorism has often been concentrated in conflict-affected countries and intertwined with larger civil wars and insurgencies. One important example: Muslim civilians have constituted a very large share of the victims of violence committed by jihadist organizations. That is an important corrective to the way terrorism is sometimes perceived in the West.

And lastly, social networks matter enormously in radicalization and recruitment. Online propaganda matters, but people are also influenced by those they know and trust: friends, family members and existing relationships. We should not imagine radicalization simply as a stranger watching something on the internet and suddenly becoming a terrorist.

Can the world ever be completely free of terrorism?

At its core, terrorism involves the use of violence in pursuit of political objectives, and as long as political conflict exists, the possibility that some actors will resort to terrorism will also exist.

But we can make terrorism much rarer and much less effective. Governments have already developed many tools that work. And when counterterrorism works well, most people never see it in their day-to-day lives. Those efforts need to continue. At the same time, restraint is also important. Governments should protect their citizens vigorously, but they should avoid responses that unnecessarily create new grievances, alienate communities or undermine the democratic principles they are trying to protect.

What do you consider the ultimate lesson to be learned from 9/11?

Terrorists seek political and psychological effects far beyond the immediate violence they inflict. The number of people directly involved in an attack may be very small, but the fear, anger, polarization and policy responses it generates can affect entire societies. A society therefore has to protect itself without allowing terrorists to determine how it reacts. Security and democratic resilience should reinforce one another, not be treated as opposites.

We should remember what al-Qaida hoped to accomplish politically. The 9/11 attack was not only intended to kill people. Al-Qaida also wanted to provoke a much larger reaction from the United States and deepen divisions between the Western world and Muslim communities. Extremist organizations benefit when societies begin treating entire populations as enemies because alienation and exclusion can make their recruitment narratives more powerful.

So one of the most important responses to terrorism is actually very simple: Do not give terrorist organizations the social divisions they want. We should hold perpetrators responsible for what they do while refusing to judge millions of other people on the basis of their religion, ethnicity, nationality or origin. In that sense, refusing collective hatred is not only a moral principle. It is also part of an effective response to terrorism.