In the months before September 11, 2001, there was a sense of complacency within the U.S. government—a belief that the world’s dangers, though present, were manageable. This so-called “September 10th mindset” lulled us into thinking that existing threats could be contained through conventional means, without significant upheaval or sacrifice. That illusion was shattered in a single day. The tragedy of 9/11 forced us to confront the harsh realities of a world that was far more volatile and lethal than we had allowed ourselves to believe. What followed was a transformation—a “September 12th mindset”—where determination, collaboration, and a singular focus on defeating terrorism became the driving forces of American policy.
Yet, as we survey today’s geopolitical landscape, there’s an unsettling sense that the complacency of September 10th has returned, not just in our approach to terrorism but in our dealings with major adversaries like Russia, China, and Iran. The Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community, institutions that should be our first line of defense, seem increasingly absorbed in matters of lesser urgency, such as expanding bureaucratic structures, pursuing diversity initiatives, and focusing on near-term budget allocations that neglect long-term strategic threats.
Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, its relentless cyberattacks on Western infrastructure—these are not the actions of a nation content with mere diplomacy. And yet, there persists a dangerous belief that Russia can be managed through sanctions and stern warnings. This is a perilous echo of the pre-9/11 thinking, where terrorism was seen as a distant, manageable threat rather than the ticking time bomb it turned out to be.
Then there’s China, whose military expansion and assertive moves in the Indo-Pacific region are as clear as a thunderstorm on the horizon. Yet some believe that economic ties will restrain China’s ambitions, ignoring the cold reality that history is littered with conflicts that erupted despite deep economic interdependence. The thinking here is reminiscent of an era when American policymakers, eyes wide shut, assumed that the tides of globalization would wash away the ancient currents of rivalry and expansionism.
And Iran? Here we see a regime that funds terror, destabilizes its neighbors, and edges closer to nuclear capability, while the U.S. responds with half-measures, hoping to placate rather than confront. This is the language of appeasement, not strategy—a language that, if history is any guide, only emboldens those who seek to do us harm.
What we need is a return to the mindset that defined us in the days after 9/11. The “September 12th mindset” wasn’t just about reacting to a tragedy—it was about understanding the scale of the threats we faced and responding with the full measure of our power and resolve. It wasn’t about managing problems; it was about confronting and defeating them. We understood then that the stakes were existential, and we acted accordingly. We need that clarity of purpose today, more than ever.
Facing Russia, China, and Iran with a “September 12th mindset” means recognizing that these aren’t just challenges to be managed—they are threats that require a comprehensive, unwavering response. It means prioritizing defense and intelligence strategies that are proactive, not reactive, and that look beyond the immediate horizon to secure our long-term national interests.
In today’s world, the stakes are as high as they were on that fateful September morning. The threats are different, but no less severe. They demand the same unity of purpose, the same determination to defend our nation and its values. And perhaps, as a reminder of the seriousness of our times, every federal employee—particularly those in the corridors of defense and intelligence—should have a calendar on their desk that perpetually displays the date as September 12th. A small, daily reminder that complacency is the enemy, and that the resolve we showed then must guide us now.
Comments