Endless War On Terror Analysis
The Endless War on Terror: Comparing George Orwell’s Fiction and George Bush’s Reality
After the September 11th attacks, the United States of America began an international military campaign dubbed the "War on Terror", against terrorist organizations and regimes that supported them. Started during the Bush administration, this war continued through Barack Obama's presidency, when it became more focused on specific terrorist groups, and appears to be continuing to the future, with current U.S. president Donald Trump marking the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) as his “highest priority” (Szoldra). This conflict is drastically different from any other in the history of mankind, as it is a boundless war with no specific …show more content…
presidents to understand the motivations behind the War on Terror, because from the present actions it is clear that “world peace” is not one of them. The first place to look would be the name of the military campaigns themselves. The phrase “War on Terror” was first used by President Bush in an address to a joint session of Congress on 20 September 2001, after the 9/11 attacks. Bush claimed the attacks were a declaration of war on the United States, and the next step was for the U.S. to respond, beginning with al-Qaeda and ending when “every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated”. From that statement on the term extended its meaning to the war in Iraq and currently in part to the Syrian War. This is an issue, because it leads people to believe that these wars are one and the same, while the reality is that they are all very different. This is one of the reasons why the UK has abandoned the term and is now referring to the conflicts as different entities. Hilary Benn, British minister, goes on to say that the word “war” itself is incorrect, because, “we can't win by military means alone, and because this isn't us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives”. British Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Ken MacDonald goes one step further and claims that the concept of war itself is dangerous, "It is critical that we understand that this new form of terrorism carries another more subtle, perhaps equally pernicious, risk. Because it might encourage a fear-driven and inappropriate response. By that I mean it can tempt us to abandon our values." (Reynolds). The provocation of such a fear-driven response is one of Donald Trump’s main tactics that won him the 2016 Presidential Elections, and it is also a factor on which he relies for support when he signs his most controversial bills (Altman). Fear is also
After the September 11th attacks, the United States of America began an international military campaign dubbed the "War on Terror", against terrorist organizations and regimes that supported them. Started during the Bush administration, this war continued through Barack Obama's presidency, when it became more focused on specific terrorist groups, and appears to be continuing to the future, with current U.S. president Donald Trump marking the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) as his “highest priority” (Szoldra). This conflict is drastically different from any other in the history of mankind, as it is a boundless war with no specific …show more content…
presidents to understand the motivations behind the War on Terror, because from the present actions it is clear that “world peace” is not one of them. The first place to look would be the name of the military campaigns themselves. The phrase “War on Terror” was first used by President Bush in an address to a joint session of Congress on 20 September 2001, after the 9/11 attacks. Bush claimed the attacks were a declaration of war on the United States, and the next step was for the U.S. to respond, beginning with al-Qaeda and ending when “every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated”. From that statement on the term extended its meaning to the war in Iraq and currently in part to the Syrian War. This is an issue, because it leads people to believe that these wars are one and the same, while the reality is that they are all very different. This is one of the reasons why the UK has abandoned the term and is now referring to the conflicts as different entities. Hilary Benn, British minister, goes on to say that the word “war” itself is incorrect, because, “we can't win by military means alone, and because this isn't us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives”. British Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Ken MacDonald goes one step further and claims that the concept of war itself is dangerous, "It is critical that we understand that this new form of terrorism carries another more subtle, perhaps equally pernicious, risk. Because it might encourage a fear-driven and inappropriate response. By that I mean it can tempt us to abandon our values." (Reynolds). The provocation of such a fear-driven response is one of Donald Trump’s main tactics that won him the 2016 Presidential Elections, and it is also a factor on which he relies for support when he signs his most controversial bills (Altman). Fear is also