Post-9/11

Post 9-11 is a phrase that by all rights should merely refer to a literal time period. During it's

inception, perhaps it did, “Will a new department be created in the government post-9/11?”, “When

will the congress re-convene, post-9/11?”. Since then, however, it has acquired several meanings, none

of them literal and perhaps none of them useful.

Rudolph Giuliani was infamous for his near-constant use of 'post-9/11' when referring to his

tenure as mayor of NYC during his short-lived presidential campaign. In this context it seems to signify

a series of events which took place after the 9/11 attacks, perhaps the creation of the Department of

Homeland Security or the invasion of Afghanistan. Though in this example it was used for personal

gain, it still was similar to it's original, literal meaning and in that aspect may have held use for

speakers. Unfortunately this was merely the beginning of the evolution of the term.

Bill O'Reilly frequently criticizes news stories from a perspective which he specifically refers to

as post-9/11. It would seem to denote here an added sense of perspective and a manner through which

one can process information. Perhaps even a context in which to consider developing events. Maybe

when examining facts directly connected to the 9/11 attacks this would hold meaning and have use, but

the truth is, it is has been stretched to so many issues (the war in Iraq, Holocaust denial in Iran, the

Valerie Plame incident) that it holds no meaning for, that no meaning is left for it in this context.

Easily the most common use of the term is as an excuse of sorts, refusing to push boundaries in

a 'post-9/11 climate'. From this, it appears to imply that what was acceptable before 9/11, no longer is

today. In this sense perhaps it refers to a political atmosphere which stems from the 9/11 attacks.
Though it is true that screenings at the airport are still intrusive, is our current world truly that

dependent on a nearly-decade old attack? Our president is different, most of our congress is different,

the war in Iraq has been effectively ended with a withdrawal date from Afghanistan already passed into

law. So can this meaning still be considered to hold any tangible value? Or are we merely propagating

the fear which resulted from such an unforeseen attack? And if so, and if we let this fear control us in

ways detrimental to ourselves (i.e. rushing into wars with insufficient information), is it not to our

advantage to abandon that fear and in so doing, abandon the term?

The simple problem with these three definitions is their lack of cohesiveness; in order for a term

to carry any inherent value, it must have a meaning. Take for example the f-word. Though in it's roots it

does have meaning, it has become so widely-used that it may now be utilized as any part of speech, in

the same sentence it could be a verb, a noun, an adjective, an adverb and even hyperbole. Because of

this, the word holds virtually no meaning except for it's natural shock-value. This is incredibly similar

to the phrase post-9/11, though it cannot be used as anything but an adjective or time period, as shown

above it is completely devoid of any cohesive meaning and instead has value only as a taboo, a line not

to be crossed. It dares those who oppose it to violate the sanctity of the deadliest attack against America

in over half a century.

In light of this, can we truly say that post-9/11 is term which holds any real value (besides

literal)? And if it does not, and if it's use has begun to harm our society, why do we continue to use it?

Or rather, why should we?