At War After 9/11 Summary

In his writing, Howard criticizes the way the US government has acted and treated the “fight” against terrorist groups post-9/11. Focusing on the phrase used by the former Secretary of State Colin Powell, I would like to first focus on the way the US government described the fight against al Qaeda and the actions they took in response and my reaction, followed by my thoughts on the fight against terrorist groups in Afghanistan and in general.
Like others before him, Howard argues that former Secretary of State Powell committed a grave mistake when he stated that the US is “at war” post 9/11. On this accord, I completely agree because I believe it gave legitimacy to terrorist groups which was what they’ve been craving for, which the phrase “at war” appropriated them. In addition, it justified and
The war psychosis that the US was under after the government’s announcement aroused expectation from the media and the public of immediate decisive result, which didn’t happen. On the other hand, I can somehow understand why Powell had to use the words “at war”. I think that by describing the fight against terrorism as a “war”, it gives a strong impression of seriousness and emergency. At that time, the American public was still afraid and grieving from the 9/11 attacks and were more willing to support an American government that was decisive and promised to put those who were at fault to justice. In addition, the rest of the world were mourning with the US and are more sympathetic to its situation that calling the fight against terrorism as “war”, was the opportune time to do so. In short, the domestic politics and international condition was in favour of the US. Therefore, despite the risk of legitimizing the enemy (which may give it the rights of conventional belligerents) by announcing the US is