Introduction
The most significant terrorist attack on American soil was the September 11 attacks by Al Qaeda terrorists. The attacks changed the perception that America cannot suffer such attacks, considering how far away it is from where terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda are based. The attacks also initiated America’s war against terrorism, which continues to date. Before the September 11 attacks, Americans had never experienced a large scale terrorist incident within their country’s borders. Moreover, most local and state security agencies had no experience with such attacks and were, therefore, very ill-prepared to respond to them. The only historic attacks or incidents that compare to the September 11 attacks were the airplane hijackings of the seventies and the eighties. The fact that Americans were not prepared and for the attacks and never expected such attacks to happen on their soil resulted in many people being very surprised and mentally traumatized by the attacks. There was pressure on the government to attack in a significant way to prevent such attacks from reoccurring. This is what resulted in major changes in the United States government’s foreign and domestic security policies. It also led to the government getting into several wars and supporting various governments and militias across the world to fight its enemies. This paper reviews some of the key government reactions to the September 11 attacks and the role of the private sector in the country’s security policy after the attacks.

Public Opinion After 9/11 Attack

After the September 11 attacks, most Americans called for and supported the creation of a strong security policy to respond to the threat of terrorism. The general public felt very angry. However, in contrast, the Americans who were directly affected by the attacks felt quite anxious and stressed about terrorism and did not support the country’s continued involvement in wars and counter-terrorism operations overseas. Those who felt less secure after the attacks and believed it was highly likely that the country could suffer similar attacks in the future, had a higher likelihood of advocating for strong domestic and foreign national security actions and policies (Gramlich, 2018).

In the weeks that followed the September 11 attacks in New York and on Pentagon, polling showed that trust in the United States government increased to percentages only previously witnessed in the 1960s. The last polling that measured the percentage of the public that trusted the Bush government before the September 11 attacks was a Los Angeles Times national poll conducted in March 2001. The national poll revealed that only 29 percent of the American public trusted the government. In contrast, a comparable Washington Post national poll conducted about two weeks from the September 11 attacks showed that trust in the government had significantly increased to 64 percent (Chanley, 2002). Trust in the government increased probably because Americans were terrified and scared after the attacks and, therefore, supported their government so that it could act fast and punish the perpetrators of the attack and prevent similar attacks from happening in the future.

After the attacks and over two decades later, several national polls have revealed that the majority of the American public think protecting the country against terrorism ought to be the priority for both the Executive and the Congress. For instance, as recently as when President Trump was elected, a national poll revealed that 73 percent of Americans agreed that the top priority for the then newly elected president should be to protect the nation against terrorist attacks...…protection, private actors can support the federal government in the protection of critical infrastructure in several ways (Dugulin & Niglia, 2015).

First, private actors can act as advisers to government agencies and international agencies. There are many private sector consultancy firms that are directly involved in advising companies and agencies around the world that own or run critical infrastructures. They have a lot of knowledge and experience they can share with government agencies and international agencies to help with the protection of critical infrastructures. For instance, some private sector actors do directly evaluate critical infrastructure operator needs. They also help critical infrastructure operators in their day to day operations. Therefore, they have valuable information that they can share with government agencies to develop policies for critical infrastructure protection (Dugulin & Niglia, 2015).

Second, private actors can be involved directly in critical infrastructure protection. Considering the location of various critical infrastructures and assets, in some cases, the government and concerned agencies should contract the work of critical infrastructure protection to private actors. Some of the factors that make contracting critical infrastructure protection to private actors more preferable include operational, legal, and political restraints that limit the kind of actions that public authorities can take. Many private actors are already involved in critical infrastructure protection, especially of oil and gas supply lines (Dugulin & Niglia, 2015).

Lastly, private actors can help public authorities in several areas of critical infrastructure protection even in cases whereby public authorities remain the protectors of the infrastructures. For example, private consultancy firms can provide public authorities with various types of reports to help improve the protection of critical infrastructures. They can also help with the formulation of policies or cooperate with public authorities to protect critical infrastructures and assets (Dugulin & Niglia, 2015).…