Can America Win The War On Terror Essay
Can America win the war on terror?
Just to comment briefly on the question, America's war on terror is a highly simplistic characterisation of something so complex. Saying war can be easily waged against terror makes it seem as if it can be easily won. America's war on terror is like waging a war on littering or waging a war against racism (which still goes on in the US and most parts of the world) . It cannot be fully won but it can be controlled to an extent.
If the US aims to win this war on terror the US has to look at the why and how question of terrorism, the underlying causes, and it has to find a solution. America also needs to re-examine its foreign policies in the Middle East and to the rest of the world, America needs to change it strategies towards dealing with threats, crisis and conflicts, and until it does, the US wouldn't be terrorists prime target.
However, just to keep a balance view, one should look at the series of events that led the US to wage this war on terror, one has to examine the strategies for winning this war and whether or not this war on terror has been a success in relation to the question.
According to the US federal statute, "terrorism means premeditated politically motivated violence perpetrated against non combatant targets by sub national groups …show more content…
intended to influence an audience" (Hayden, Lansford, Watson, 2003 xii). These acts can either be done through bombings, hijacking or even kidnapping. This definition of terrorism as a "premeditated politically motivated violence" shows the extreme measures that terrorist groups are willing to take in order to change the structure in their society, which leads to the question of why such extreme measures have been taken to warrant change in their society. Terrorism has resulted as a product of globalisation, which makes the threat more imminent than ever. Terrorists will always have the element of surprise to their advantage they don't necessarily need to posses advance technological weapons this was proved during 911.
The first thing one has to understand is that terrorism did not spring up overnight, it has been going on for centuries also, terrorist attacks has been aimed at the US through bombings of US embassies in Tanzania, Kenya and Lebanon. It wasn't until the events of 9/11, which prompted America to wage this war on terror.
The US foreign policy following the incident of 9/11 changed drastically in a number of ways, firstly it showed the vulnerability of the US on its own soil, which increased the threat to the US security. This also brought terrorist awareness to the US.
Secondly, America felt it could be attacked again at any time in the near future; government experts were able to point out that WMDs could easily accessed and deployed on the US.
Thirdly, terrorism became the number one agenda on the US foreign policy; before 911 intelligence operations had existed it wasn't until 911 that they were given high priority, with the creation of the Homeland Security, which is aimed to protect America from terrorism. Fourthly, the US doctrine changed from one of containment and deterrence as was used during the Cold War, to the use of prevention and pre-emption. Which is a highly controversial issue that will be addressed later in the
essay.
The question can America win the war on terrorism is an extremely debatable issue. On the one hand America could win the war on terror if they could offer a plausible explanation as to why it's a subject of terrorism to its citizens. After 911 Bush focused more on the inexplicable acts of the terrorist rather than why America was targeted in the first place.
"They hate what we see right here in this chamber- a democratically elected government, their leaders are self appointed. They hate our freedoms- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other"
(Hayden, Lansford, Watson 2003 29)
Bushes speech doesn't offer an explanation at all, rather it focuses more on the "they hate us because we're a democracy" this is very unenlightening after all, there are other democratic states in the world and some which are even more democratic than the US but they did not warrant the large scale attack of 911. It leads to the question why us instead of them? "Many Americans are held back from achieving a better understanding of how their government is perceived by knowing so little of their own history." (Booth and Dune 2002 3) This was evident during Bushes campaign when he couldn't name the President of Pakistan.
However there are reasons why the US never offered a just explanation for the 911 attacks, partly because it would be admitting a glitch in its foreign policy in the Middle East, and its policies toward the Islamic world, particularly the role it played in the Iraq-Iran war, the Gulf war, the failure of the US to remain in Afghanistan after defeating the Soviets in 1988 these are all factors that led to the growth of terrorism towards the US. Other factors such as the neo-conservatives and Congress who tend to be pro-Israeli and interest groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the American Muslim Alliance (AMA), to name a few. "These different interest groups attempt to frame foreign policy in terms of American national interests when confronting US policy elites." (Hayden, Lansford and Watson ,2003 81). This would also invoke sympathy in the American people and they would turn around and blame the US government for the attacks.
On the other hand if America had sought to determine the cause, it still would not necessarily eliminate the threat, but it would shed light to understanding the nature of terrorism itself.
In this war on terror Bush has paid more attention to treating the symptoms of terrorism, if you look at Afghanistans Operation Enduring Freedom, Bush was successful in overthrowing the Taliban regime, disrupting some of al-Qaeda cells and setting up a democratic government and liberating the Afghan people, rounding up allies, increasing airport security at home and improving Homeland Security. Although he disrupted al-Qaeda , America still did not manage to catch Bin Laden or his number two. These are all advantages to ensuring US security, but never the less it has nothing to do with altering or identifying the root causes of terrorism. As mentioned before understanding the motivation for these attacks is a crucial element. Also, the war on terror shouldn't be waged against people; it should be waged against people's motivations, what motivates terrorist is global poverty, as cited in the US National Security Strategy of 2002, "poverty, weak institutions and corruption can make weak states vulnerable to terrorist networks" so does oppression, genocide which leads to unstable nations and rogue nations, which actually sponsor sub-state terrorism. What America needs to do is to wage a war on poverty as a corner stone to win this war on terror, and should focus more on nation-building in the Middle East and in third world countries across the world.
Catching, imprisoning and interrogating terrorist does not stop the regeneration of terrorist. For every terrorist caught and killed there will be twice as much that will rise more dangerous and defiant as ever and Bush will remain unsuccessful in this war against terror. America should focus on stopping the spread of terrorism by reaching the youths of these states who are still impressionable by people like Osama who have extreme hatred towards the West. If the US government was more open to the opinions of its citizens it might be able to create awareness, sensitivity and concern to other nations and the Arab street as well which would improve Americas image domestically and internationally.
The goal of the Bush administration "is to destroy, disrupt and defeat al-Qaeda and other terrorist threatening the US security wherever they can be found." (Jentleson, 2004 400)
Having been successful in Afghanistan as a component to the war on terror the next focus was on Iraq as part of the "axis of evil". Counter-terrorism is a strategy used by the US, which allows the US to draw up on its military capabilities to pursue its objectives; these acts could be done through assassination, kidnapping and torturing of terrorist which the US claims to be doing in self defence to protect its citizens both at home and abroad. Counter-terrorism also enables the US to use its military capabilities against terrorist, countries that harbour terrorists and countries that sponsor terrorist. Since 911 America has increased its military base in the Middle East which undermines its goal for peace and success in those regions. This drawing up of military muscle has led to the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strike, which was applied in self-defence against Iraq. The use of pre-emption requires reliable intelligence, at the end of the day the War in Iraq was pointless because the leader Saddam Hussein didn't have in his possession WMDs
For America to win this war on terror it has to round up the coalitions of the willing. America needs to adopt a more multilateral approach in combating this war on terror. Its military strength might be sufficient, but it is not enough, to combat terrorism internationally, communication and co-operation in the international realm is urgently needed. Bushes policy of acting with allies when necessary and acting alone when possible is a pluralistic attitude adopted by the US. In the 2002 US National Security Strategy, " while the US will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone if necessary" This approach will end up getting the US in more trouble. Intelligence is an issue which needs to be solved, internally, information was not being shared between the FBI and the CIA prior to 9/11 with this war on terror America needs to co-operate with its Middle East, South Asia and its European counterparts if it aims to win this war.
In the Iraqi war America seriously undermined the UN and NATO, internally there was conflict between Cheney and Rumsfeld who were unilateralists and Powel an internationalist that urged Bush to take the case to the UN before acting alone, never the less, America acted alone despite protests from people in most Arab capitals. The US violated Article 51 of the UN Charter "which acknowledges the inherent right of states to act in self defense only if an armed act occurs, and until the UN Security Council acts." (Jentleson 2004 404) The UN Security Council did not approve of the Iraqi war but America violated international law and invaded regardless. America has set a dangerous precedent for other states who would use self-defense to invade other states.
The principle used behind this War on Terror is based on democratic idealism. To spread power and influence in the Middle East is an old-fashioned American geopolitical move to further its national interest. The aim of the US as the hegemonic power is to spread democracy which in turn would in time create stability in the Middle East. Americans believe that once these authoritarian regimes are removed and democracy is set up, these democratic nations in turn, were less likely to go to war with each other. The US has taken it amongst its self of spreading democracy around the world. But to set up democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq as a strategy to win this War on Terror is not enough, the political systems in these countries must be "sufficiently inclusive to have legitimacy among the countries various ethnic and other groups." (Jentleson 2004 406).
It makes you wonder whether or not winning the war on peace is not as important in these regions than winning the war on terror itself. America should have solved the Arab-Israeli conflict before invading Iraq, because al-Qaeda has exploited the situation claiming that the US was trying to "protect the Jewish occupiers and achieve their expansionist dream of setting up a Jewish state between the Nile and Euphrates" (Hayden, Lansford, Watson 2003 93)
The problem with spreading democracy in these regions is based on the religious difference between the West and the Arab world. Islamic fundamentalism "regards democracy as irrelevant to Islam, and Islam is superior to democracy" (Jentleson 2004 554) When you have a new breed of terrorist and traditional islamist who see democracy as irrelevant it really undermines Americas principle for democracy in the Middle East.
In line of the argument, America has applied its four P's and if America aims to win this war on terror it needs to draw less of its hard power and more on its soft power, it needs to adopt a more multilateral approach. It needs to rethink on its principle of democracy in areas where religion is rooted into political beliefs, lastly Americas foreign policy needs to focus more nation building as a tool to combat terrorism.
Just to comment briefly on the question, America's war on terror is a highly simplistic characterisation of something so complex. Saying war can be easily waged against terror makes it seem as if it can be easily won. America's war on terror is like waging a war on littering or waging a war against racism (which still goes on in the US and most parts of the world) . It cannot be fully won but it can be controlled to an extent.
If the US aims to win this war on terror the US has to look at the why and how question of terrorism, the underlying causes, and it has to find a solution. America also needs to re-examine its foreign policies in the Middle East and to the rest of the world, America needs to change it strategies towards dealing with threats, crisis and conflicts, and until it does, the US wouldn't be terrorists prime target.
However, just to keep a balance view, one should look at the series of events that led the US to wage this war on terror, one has to examine the strategies for winning this war and whether or not this war on terror has been a success in relation to the question.
According to the US federal statute, "terrorism means premeditated politically motivated violence perpetrated against non combatant targets by sub national groups …show more content…
intended to influence an audience" (Hayden, Lansford, Watson, 2003 xii). These acts can either be done through bombings, hijacking or even kidnapping. This definition of terrorism as a "premeditated politically motivated violence" shows the extreme measures that terrorist groups are willing to take in order to change the structure in their society, which leads to the question of why such extreme measures have been taken to warrant change in their society. Terrorism has resulted as a product of globalisation, which makes the threat more imminent than ever. Terrorists will always have the element of surprise to their advantage they don't necessarily need to posses advance technological weapons this was proved during 911.
The first thing one has to understand is that terrorism did not spring up overnight, it has been going on for centuries also, terrorist attacks has been aimed at the US through bombings of US embassies in Tanzania, Kenya and Lebanon. It wasn't until the events of 9/11, which prompted America to wage this war on terror.
The US foreign policy following the incident of 9/11 changed drastically in a number of ways, firstly it showed the vulnerability of the US on its own soil, which increased the threat to the US security. This also brought terrorist awareness to the US.
Secondly, America felt it could be attacked again at any time in the near future; government experts were able to point out that WMDs could easily accessed and deployed on the US.
Thirdly, terrorism became the number one agenda on the US foreign policy; before 911 intelligence operations had existed it wasn't until 911 that they were given high priority, with the creation of the Homeland Security, which is aimed to protect America from terrorism. Fourthly, the US doctrine changed from one of containment and deterrence as was used during the Cold War, to the use of prevention and pre-emption. Which is a highly controversial issue that will be addressed later in the
essay.
The question can America win the war on terrorism is an extremely debatable issue. On the one hand America could win the war on terror if they could offer a plausible explanation as to why it's a subject of terrorism to its citizens. After 911 Bush focused more on the inexplicable acts of the terrorist rather than why America was targeted in the first place.
"They hate what we see right here in this chamber- a democratically elected government, their leaders are self appointed. They hate our freedoms- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other"
(Hayden, Lansford, Watson 2003 29)
Bushes speech doesn't offer an explanation at all, rather it focuses more on the "they hate us because we're a democracy" this is very unenlightening after all, there are other democratic states in the world and some which are even more democratic than the US but they did not warrant the large scale attack of 911. It leads to the question why us instead of them? "Many Americans are held back from achieving a better understanding of how their government is perceived by knowing so little of their own history." (Booth and Dune 2002 3) This was evident during Bushes campaign when he couldn't name the President of Pakistan.
However there are reasons why the US never offered a just explanation for the 911 attacks, partly because it would be admitting a glitch in its foreign policy in the Middle East, and its policies toward the Islamic world, particularly the role it played in the Iraq-Iran war, the Gulf war, the failure of the US to remain in Afghanistan after defeating the Soviets in 1988 these are all factors that led to the growth of terrorism towards the US. Other factors such as the neo-conservatives and Congress who tend to be pro-Israeli and interest groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the American Muslim Alliance (AMA), to name a few. "These different interest groups attempt to frame foreign policy in terms of American national interests when confronting US policy elites." (Hayden, Lansford and Watson ,2003 81). This would also invoke sympathy in the American people and they would turn around and blame the US government for the attacks.
On the other hand if America had sought to determine the cause, it still would not necessarily eliminate the threat, but it would shed light to understanding the nature of terrorism itself.
In this war on terror Bush has paid more attention to treating the symptoms of terrorism, if you look at Afghanistans Operation Enduring Freedom, Bush was successful in overthrowing the Taliban regime, disrupting some of al-Qaeda cells and setting up a democratic government and liberating the Afghan people, rounding up allies, increasing airport security at home and improving Homeland Security. Although he disrupted al-Qaeda , America still did not manage to catch Bin Laden or his number two. These are all advantages to ensuring US security, but never the less it has nothing to do with altering or identifying the root causes of terrorism. As mentioned before understanding the motivation for these attacks is a crucial element. Also, the war on terror shouldn't be waged against people; it should be waged against people's motivations, what motivates terrorist is global poverty, as cited in the US National Security Strategy of 2002, "poverty, weak institutions and corruption can make weak states vulnerable to terrorist networks" so does oppression, genocide which leads to unstable nations and rogue nations, which actually sponsor sub-state terrorism. What America needs to do is to wage a war on poverty as a corner stone to win this war on terror, and should focus more on nation-building in the Middle East and in third world countries across the world.
Catching, imprisoning and interrogating terrorist does not stop the regeneration of terrorist. For every terrorist caught and killed there will be twice as much that will rise more dangerous and defiant as ever and Bush will remain unsuccessful in this war against terror. America should focus on stopping the spread of terrorism by reaching the youths of these states who are still impressionable by people like Osama who have extreme hatred towards the West. If the US government was more open to the opinions of its citizens it might be able to create awareness, sensitivity and concern to other nations and the Arab street as well which would improve Americas image domestically and internationally.
The goal of the Bush administration "is to destroy, disrupt and defeat al-Qaeda and other terrorist threatening the US security wherever they can be found." (Jentleson, 2004 400)
Having been successful in Afghanistan as a component to the war on terror the next focus was on Iraq as part of the "axis of evil". Counter-terrorism is a strategy used by the US, which allows the US to draw up on its military capabilities to pursue its objectives; these acts could be done through assassination, kidnapping and torturing of terrorist which the US claims to be doing in self defence to protect its citizens both at home and abroad. Counter-terrorism also enables the US to use its military capabilities against terrorist, countries that harbour terrorists and countries that sponsor terrorist. Since 911 America has increased its military base in the Middle East which undermines its goal for peace and success in those regions. This drawing up of military muscle has led to the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strike, which was applied in self-defence against Iraq. The use of pre-emption requires reliable intelligence, at the end of the day the War in Iraq was pointless because the leader Saddam Hussein didn't have in his possession WMDs
For America to win this war on terror it has to round up the coalitions of the willing. America needs to adopt a more multilateral approach in combating this war on terror. Its military strength might be sufficient, but it is not enough, to combat terrorism internationally, communication and co-operation in the international realm is urgently needed. Bushes policy of acting with allies when necessary and acting alone when possible is a pluralistic attitude adopted by the US. In the 2002 US National Security Strategy, " while the US will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone if necessary" This approach will end up getting the US in more trouble. Intelligence is an issue which needs to be solved, internally, information was not being shared between the FBI and the CIA prior to 9/11 with this war on terror America needs to co-operate with its Middle East, South Asia and its European counterparts if it aims to win this war.
In the Iraqi war America seriously undermined the UN and NATO, internally there was conflict between Cheney and Rumsfeld who were unilateralists and Powel an internationalist that urged Bush to take the case to the UN before acting alone, never the less, America acted alone despite protests from people in most Arab capitals. The US violated Article 51 of the UN Charter "which acknowledges the inherent right of states to act in self defense only if an armed act occurs, and until the UN Security Council acts." (Jentleson 2004 404) The UN Security Council did not approve of the Iraqi war but America violated international law and invaded regardless. America has set a dangerous precedent for other states who would use self-defense to invade other states.
The principle used behind this War on Terror is based on democratic idealism. To spread power and influence in the Middle East is an old-fashioned American geopolitical move to further its national interest. The aim of the US as the hegemonic power is to spread democracy which in turn would in time create stability in the Middle East. Americans believe that once these authoritarian regimes are removed and democracy is set up, these democratic nations in turn, were less likely to go to war with each other. The US has taken it amongst its self of spreading democracy around the world. But to set up democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq as a strategy to win this War on Terror is not enough, the political systems in these countries must be "sufficiently inclusive to have legitimacy among the countries various ethnic and other groups." (Jentleson 2004 406).
It makes you wonder whether or not winning the war on peace is not as important in these regions than winning the war on terror itself. America should have solved the Arab-Israeli conflict before invading Iraq, because al-Qaeda has exploited the situation claiming that the US was trying to "protect the Jewish occupiers and achieve their expansionist dream of setting up a Jewish state between the Nile and Euphrates" (Hayden, Lansford, Watson 2003 93)
The problem with spreading democracy in these regions is based on the religious difference between the West and the Arab world. Islamic fundamentalism "regards democracy as irrelevant to Islam, and Islam is superior to democracy" (Jentleson 2004 554) When you have a new breed of terrorist and traditional islamist who see democracy as irrelevant it really undermines Americas principle for democracy in the Middle East.
In line of the argument, America has applied its four P's and if America aims to win this war on terror it needs to draw less of its hard power and more on its soft power, it needs to adopt a more multilateral approach. It needs to rethink on its principle of democracy in areas where religion is rooted into political beliefs, lastly Americas foreign policy needs to focus more nation building as a tool to combat terrorism.