The world watched the towers fall. The United States mourned nearly 3,000 lives lost in a single morning in New York, Washington, and Shanksville. R.I.P to all who lost their lives, and hugs to those suffering from the effects of this event, including families, first responders, and communities still carrying physical and emotional wounds a quarter century later.
I am John Monyjok Maluth, a China-Africa scholar and remote professional working across Writing Services, Language Services, and Technology Services. As a historian, my work is to document, translate, and interpret how large events affect people, not just states.
At 25 years, commemoration is not enough. The world and the USA must find the root cause or root causes of this terrible event instead of cutting off the branches. For historians, that means asking the questions that policy statements have avoided.
Key Takeaways
- 25 years after 9/11/2001, historians have a duty to move from describing what happened to investigating why it happened at the root level.
- What on earth could any normal or sane human even think about during such a horrible thing? That question must be asked from the perspective of shared humanity.
- What was, is, and will the US be doing that made, makes, and will make others think of harming the people of the United States of America? This is a root cause question historians must document with sources.
- The policy, “We can’t negotiate with the terrorists,” might reveal a clue to why cycles of violence persist instead of being resolved.
- No human would be an enemy unless you are their enemy first. Always. That principle reframes enemy-making as a historical process, not a fixed identity.
TL;DR
On 9/11/2001, 25 years later today, historians must go beyond branch-cutting responses and seek root causes. This requires asking what could drive a human being to such an act, what U.S. policies and actions in the past, present, and future have made, make, and will make others consider harming Americans, how the refusal to negotiate has blocked understanding, and how enmity itself is made. No human is born an enemy. Enmity is created when you become someone’s enemy first.
9/11/2001, 25 Years Later Today: From Commemoration to Root Cause History
For 25 years, public history of 9/11 has focused on chronology, heroism, and policy response. These are important, but they are branches. The trunk and roots remain under-examined.
Historians at the 25th anniversary have access to more sources than ever: declassified memos, oral histories, local archives, international press archives, and 25 years of policy impact data. The task now is to use that archive to answer root cause questions.
The world and the USA must find the root cause or root causes of this terrible event instead of cutting off the branches. Cutting branches means responding only to the last attack, the last group, the last tactic. Finding root causes means tracing how enemy relations are produced, how policies are experienced by people on the receiving end, and how alternatives to violence were closed off.
This is not about justifying a horrible act. It is about understanding it so thoroughly that we prevent its recurrence. That is the historian’s responsibility.
What On Earth Could Any Normal or Sane Human Even Think About During Such a Horrible Thing?
This question is essential and human-centered. Historians often avoid it because it requires empathy that feels uncomfortable.
But ask it directly: What on earth could any normal or sane human even think about during such a horrible thing?
A normal, sane human does not wake up seeking to die while killing thousands of strangers. A historian must ask what history that person lived through, what humiliation, loss, occupation, or violence they witnessed, what political channels were closed to them, what narratives told them that this act was the only way to be heard or to defend their people.
Normal people think about family, dignity, protection, and justice. When those are destroyed or denied over years, some are led to believe that a terrible act is a necessary act. That belief does not make the act less terrible. It makes the history that produced the belief essential to study.
For historians, this means collecting sources beyond official statements: family histories, local histories of U.S. foreign policy as experienced in specific communities, testimonies of people who lived under sanctions, bombings, or support for repressive actors, and records of peaceful attempts to seek redress that were ignored.
Our work in Writing Services and Language Services reminds us that translation matters. How U.S. policies were translated and understood locally often differs from how they were intended in Washington. That gap is a root cause location.
What Was, Is, and Will the US Be Doing That Made, Makes, and Will Make Others Think of Harming the People of the United States?
This is the central root cause question for the 25th anniversary.
Historians must document three temporal layers:
1. What was the US doing that made others think of harming Americans?
The archive for this includes: history of military interventions, bases, and bombings; support for authoritarian governments; sanctions that affected civilian populations; unconditional support for policies that displaced or harmed communities; and public statements that dehumanized entire populations. Each of these must be documented with primary sources, dates, and local impact evidence, not with slogans.
Historians should ask: How were these actions experienced by ordinary people in the regions where they occurred? What peaceful petitions, protests, or diplomatic efforts were attempted before violence? What was the response?
2. What is the US doing now that makes others think of harming Americans?
At 25 years later, continuation of the same patterns signals to others that nothing has changed. Ongoing drone warfare with civilian casualties, indefinite detention, support for repressive practices, and the policy stance of refusing dialogue all communicate that grievances will not be heard through normal means. For many, this confirms enmity.
Document current policies with the same rigor: official documents, casualty tracking by credible monitors, testimonies of affected communities, and records of attempts to seek legal or political redress.
3. What will the US be doing that will make others think of harming Americans in the future?
If root causes are not addressed, the future will repeat the past. If the U.S. continues to choose branch-cutting, military-first responses, and refuses to examine how its actions create enemies, new generations will inherit the same enmity.
Historians at this anniversary must write forward-looking history: what policy trajectories, if continued, will produce more enmity, and what alternative trajectories, grounded in negotiation, accountability, and people-centered foreign policy, would reduce it.
This work belongs in evergreen guides, source-based explainers, and classroom materials that link to Writing Services for accurate editing and publishing and Technology Services for secure handling of sensitive sources.
The Policy “We Can’t Negotiate With the Terrorists” Might Reveal a Clue
The phrase “We can’t negotiate with the terrorists” has been repeated for 25 years as a principle. For root cause historians, this policy itself is a clue.
Refusing to negotiate means refusing to listen. It means defining the other as beyond human communication. Once a group is defined as terrorists with whom negotiation is impossible, the only remaining tool is force. Force then creates new grievances, which create new actors defined as terrorists, with whom negotiation is again refused.
This is a cycle, not a strategy.
Negotiation does not mean agreement or excusing a terrible act. Negotiation means establishing communication to understand grievances, to stop ongoing harm, and to create political pathways that make terrible acts unnecessary.
Historians should document moments when negotiation was possible and was refused, when intermediaries offered channels and were rejected, and when the label terrorist was used to avoid examining policy. Those moments are in the archive: diplomatic cables, memoirs of negotiators, and oral histories of communities that sought dialogue.
For historians teaching online learners, this is a critical lesson in source evaluation: who benefits when negotiation is declared impossible, and what are the long-term costs of that declaration for the safety of the people of the United States?
No Human Would Be an Enemy Unless You Are Their Enemy First. Always.
This principle reframes the entire 25-year history.
No human is born an enemy of the United States. No child in any country wakes up inherently hating Americans. Enmity is made. It is made when people experience your country as their enemy first.
Always. Enmity has a history. It has a first act, a first bombing, a first support for a dictator who jailed their father, a first sanction that denied medicine to their mother, a first time their peaceful protest was ignored while military aid flowed to their oppressor.
Historians must trace that first act from the perspective of those who later came to see the U.S. as an enemy. That does not erase responsibility for the terrible act of 9/11. It places responsibility in a longer chain where U.S. policy is also an actor, not just a reactor.
For 25 years, branch-cutting history has told Americans that enemies simply appear, motivated by irrational hatred. Root cause history shows that enemies are created through interaction, and that the United States has agency in whether it creates or reduces enmity.
This is why root cause work is pro-humanity and pro-American safety at the same time. If no human would be an enemy unless you are their enemy first, then the most effective security policy is to stop being the enemy first. That means changing policies that are experienced as enmity by ordinary people abroad.
R.I.P to all who lost their lives on 9/11 and in the wars and policies that followed. Hugs to those suffering from the effects of this event, including families of the dead, first responders with long-term health effects, and civilians in many countries who have suffered from the branch-cutting responses of the last 25 years.
How Historians Should Work at 25 Years: A Root Cause Method
1. Build a dual chronology. One chronology of 9/11 and its immediate aftermath, and a second, longer chronology of U.S. policies in regions from which attackers came, as experienced locally. Place them side by side.
2. Prioritize lived experience sources. Collect oral histories from people who experienced U.S. policies as harm, with informed consent, and archive them with respect. Include their attempts to seek redress.
3. Document negotiation refusals. Search for records of offered mediation, ignored warnings, and rejected dialogue channels. Log who offered, what was offered, and why it was refused.
4. Teach enmity as process. For students born after 2001, design lesson plans that show how enemy identities are constructed through policy, language, and dehumanization, and how they can be deconstructed through accountability and negotiation.
5. Publish evergreen, source-based explainers. Create guides that answer root cause questions with primary sources, not speculation. Link them to your services in Writing Services and Language Services where translation and careful editing protect accuracy.
Comparison: Branch-Cutting vs Root Cause History
| Approach | Question Asked | Source Focus | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Branch-cutting | How do we stop the next attack with force | Tactical and security documents | Temporary suppression, new grievances |
| Root cause | What made, makes, and will make others see us as enemy first | Lived experience, policy impact, negotiation records, local archives | Possibility of breaking cycle |
| Policy of no negotiation | We can’t negotiate with terrorists | Official statements declaring impossibility | Closed channels, continued enmity |
| Principle of enmity first | No human is enemy unless you are their enemy first | Histories of first harm from perspective of affected | Responsibility and agency to stop being enemy first |
Reflection Questions
- What root causes have been avoided in your previous teaching or writing about 9/11, and what sources would you need to examine them?
- How does the policy “We can’t negotiate with the terrorists” function as a historical source that reveals why cycles persist?
- From your sources, what specific U.S. actions in the past were experienced as enmity first by communities that later produced violence toward Americans?
- What is currently being done that continues that experience of enmity, and what evidence would you need to document it responsibly?
- How can you teach the principle that no human would be an enemy unless you are their enemy first, always, in a way that honors both victims of 9/11 and victims of the responses that followed?
FAQs
1. Why must the 25th anniversary focus on root causes instead of just commemoration?
Because 25 years of cutting branches has not prevented new enmity. Finding root causes means tracing how enemy relations are produced and how U.S. policies are experienced as enmity first, which is the only way to stop creating future enemies.
2. What could a normal, sane human be thinking during such a horrible act?
A normal human thinks about dignity, protection, and justice. When those have been destroyed and peaceful channels closed, some come to believe a terrible act is the only way to be heard. Understanding that belief does not justify the act. It reveals the history that must be changed.
3. What has the U.S. done that made others think of harming Americans?
Historians must document with primary sources histories of military intervention, support for repressive actors, sanctions with civilian impact, and dehumanizing rhetoric, and how these were experienced locally as being made an enemy first, before any attack on Americans occurred.
4. How does “We can’t negotiate with the terrorists” reveal a clue?
It reveals a refusal to listen that closes political pathways. When negotiation is declared impossible, force becomes the only tool, which creates new grievances and new actors labeled terrorists, perpetuating the cycle.
5. What does it mean that no human would be an enemy unless you are their enemy first?
It means enmity is not innate. It is created through interaction. If the United States is experienced as an enemy first, it will be treated as an enemy. Changing that experience is the most effective way to protect the people of the United States.
Conclusion
9/11/2001, 25 years later today, demands root cause history.
The world and the USA must find the root cause or root causes of this terrible event instead of cutting off the branches. That means asking what on earth could lead any normal, sane human to such a horrible act, asking what the U.S. was, is, and will be doing that made, makes, and will make others think of harming Americans, examining how the policy of refusing to negotiate has blocked understanding, and accepting that no human would be an enemy unless you are their enemy first. Always.
This is not soft history. It is hard, source-based, accountable history that honors victims by trying to prevent future victims.
R.I.P to all who lost their lives, and hugs to those suffering from the effects of this event, in the United States and around the world. May the 25th anniversary be the year historians choose roots over branches.
And if you want to know what’s happening in my world as a writer and digital nomad, check out my Wealthy Affiliate blog page here: https://my.wealthyaffiliate.com/johnmaluth/blog.
