The Business of War and Terrorism - Coursework Example

? The Business of War and Terrorism By of 2703 Words Introduction Recent reports on the global fight against terrorism show that the world has become increasingly more militarized in its approach to addressing terror, more so regarding the expenditures on the anti-terrorism crusades. In fact, recent military spending on the war against terror is rather reminiscent of the Cold War era. The continued rise in military expenditures on anti-terrorism crusades is thus evidenced by the various reports which estimate the expenditures to be to a tune of thousands of billions of US dollars (Falk, 2002, P. 32). The ever rising military expenditures on the war against terrorism groups such as Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah has led to many stakeholders such as scholars, economists, diplomats, human rights groups and international organisations to question the rationale, causes, implications and consequences of these expenditures on the world (Ricolfi, 2005, P. 129). Although increased military expenditures on rebel and terror groups has been evident since historical times, the emergence of the current trends of rising military expenditures in anti-terrorism crusades could be traced to the 9/11/2001 terror attacks on the United Stated of America’s Twin Towers. It is after these Al-Qaeda masterminded attacks on the United States that the idea of ‘Global War on Terror (GWOT) became prominent (Wright, 2006, P. 159). Since these and later attacks on U.S interests elsewhere in the world, military expenditures on the war against terrorism have been exponentially increasing (Lustick, 2006, P. 217). The GWOT initiative has been particularly influential in shaping military spending trends, with a reported annual increase of 5% between 2001 and 2006 (Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses, 2008, P. 271). In fact, in the six years preceding the Al-Qaeda masterminded attacks in New York, an annual increase of 0.4% on military spending had been reported with the United States has being identified to account for nearly half the military expenditures against terrorism in the entire world (Sturr, 2006, P. 97). For instance, for the United States along, there was a reported 53% increase in terrorism-related military expenditures in the five years preceding the 9/11 attacks by Al-Qaeda (Ranstorp, 2009, P. 119). In fact, according to the Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses, the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) approximates that based on the size of troops deployed in operational areas, the total cost of GWOT is likely to reach between $1.2 trillion and $1.17 trillion by 2017 (Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses, 2008, P. 89).This paper thus explores the assertion that the increased military spending on the war against terror is misplaced. Misplaced Military Spending on the War against Terror Although the 9/11 could be cited as the major contributory factor to the increased military expenditures by the United States, other major spenders such as the United Kingdom have also had their military expenditures affected by terrorist activities all over the world, including the 9/11. Therefore, the negative impacts of this increased military spending are apparent not only in big world economies such as the US, United Kingdom but also in emerging economic powerhouses such as China and India (Ranstorp, 2009, P. 110). In fact, recently, China overtook Japan in military spending, becoming the fourth highest military spender. There unanimity among stakeholders in the belief that the increased military spending in the war against terrorism has been a rather misplaced undertaking, which should be reversed and the resources averted to other uses that would address more dire situations faced in different parts of the world. Several obviously important projects to which these funds should have been diverted have been extensively presented and discussed in many a forum. There are thus several negative effects of the increased military spending on the war against terror, which support the assertion that these spending are misplaced. For instance, in China, military expenditures on the war against terror targets and prepares for an information-oriented war in which high-technology, high-speed and digitized equipment and weapons would be used. In fact, in China, the war against terror could be likened to an arms race in which China seeks to match the United States’ military powers not only for fighting terror but also for the mere military show of force (Wood et al., 2012, P. 213). From the current trend in military spending on anti-terrorism in China and other world major spenders; it is apparent that the war against terrorism has become a fertile ground for starting and perpetuating an arms race (Cook, 2005, P. 61). In fact, this increased military spending on anti-terrorism policies has led to a huge rise in the production and export of arms. As a result, the value of arms exports has increased in the years that followed the 9/11 Al-Qaeda attacks on the United States. Instead of keeping peace and promoting world safety, the military overspending by world powers in the name of fighting terror has only fuelled more conflicts in the world. For an illustration, the increased production and export of arms has led to most of these arms being exported to developing and underdeveloped countries (Wilkinson, 1997, P. 73). It should be noted that the developing countries/regions account for most (four-fifths) of world conflicts. Thus, terror and other kinds of conflicts are in higher proportion in these areas than anywhere else in the world. The delivery of the newly produced weapons to the developing world has therefore just kept the conflicts in these areas alive. In fact, the arms race occasioned by the increased military spending after the Al-Qaeda attacks of 9/11 and the increased production of arms has resulted in countries such as India, Pakistan and China undertaking huge military equipment procurements from the international markets (Summers & Swan, 2011, P. 243). In major military spending countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom and China among others, anti-terrorism pending has been reported to be thousands of times more than the spending on any other forms of threats or needs. Although lives lost through acts of terrorism are equally valuable and as citizens of this world, it is always tragic to us that someone loses his/her life to the barbaric acts of terrorists, there are other major causes of death, suffering and deprivation that should equally attract the attention of policy makers and world leaders (Richardson, 2006, P. 39). For instance, if the United States loses about 3,000 citizens to acts of terrorism in one decade, this averages to 300 lives per year. Such figures are obviously tragic and call upon governments and citizens to do everything possible to prevent, reduce, and eliminate any threats or acts of terrorism. Nonetheless, there are a lot other more serious and demanding ways in which people lose their lives and/or suffer in the society. Therefore, much as terrorism must be addressed and tackled given the serious threat it is, there are graver dangers to which the authorities should direct the kind of spending allocated to the fight against terrorism (Pastor, 2009, P. 297). For example, diseases such as cancer and heart conditions are more serious threats and killers than acts of terrorism and spending more on militarized anti-terror crusades is a rather misplaced undertaking in this regard. Governments should therefore realise that there are not infinite resources to detect, prevent and eliminate all the threats faced by their citizens. Thus, it is imperative that governments proportionally allocate the available scarce resources to peoples’ needs in accordance to the magnitude or severity of each threat. In other words, to tackle all the threats/dangers their citizens are exposed to, governments should first place them into perspective (Noah, 2009, P. 27). For instance, heart disease, cancer and stroke all come before terrorism as top killers although the money spent on tackling them fall below that spent on terrorism by unimaginable margins. Governments ostensibly fail to place their spending priorities in order due to their inability to put their citizens’ threats into perspective. Without first prioritizing these threats, governments become incompetent and unrealistic while allocating the resources to be used in combating the threats faced by their citizens. It is rather ironical that the governments of major world powers and spenders such as the US, Australia, France, Germany and the UK allocate billions and trillions of dollars and sterling pounds to less likely causes of death such as terrorism (Pew Research Center, 2007, P. 51). In the United States, to give an example, about $150 billion is devoted to anti-terrorism military projects annually. On the other hand, for major causes of death such as heart disease, a paltry $2 billion is allocated. Economic consequences are the other indications that the military overspending on anti-terrorism has been a misplaced exercise. Initially, acts of terrorism such as Al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attack on the US are quite enormous. It is these initial economic consequences of acts of terror that governments use to justify the huge sums of money and other resources allocated to fighting terrorism (Priest & Arkin, 2010, P. 114). However, just like the 9/11 attacks, all acts of terror do not result in any significant negative effects on a country’s GDP. Although conventionally, people have been made to believe that military spending is often good for a country’s economy, a number of microeconomic models and theories show that military spending on terrorism or other project for that matter merely diverts a country’s resources from productive applications such as investment and consumption (George Mason University Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, 2003). Ultimately, overspending on military in the name of the war against terrorism slows a country’s economy through loss of employment among other consequences. Governments are thus wrong by implying to their citizens that by increasingly spending more on the military aspect of the anti-terror campaign, the economies are more protected and developed. These governments are particularly wrong since these resources should be allocated to other productive and vital sectors such as investment, education, health care and agriculture. That domestic spending has been ignored as more money is channeled towards the global war on terrorism has resulted in the decline of the domestic sectors of many world economies. Governments are consequently not justified in the manner in which they allocate huge funds into their armed forces for the war on terror (Purpura, 2007, P. 62). For instance, there are millions of people in the world living in abject poverty, with their children attending run down and mismanaged schools. Worse still, millions are homeless and sleep on streets benches on empty stomachs. The increased military spending on the war against terror has also led to the over taxation of workers in many countries, more so the majors spenders. If some of these huge sums allocated to the war against terror were diverted to addressing the above issues, more homes could be built and hospitals and schools built and equipped. The war on terror has also taken a new twist that does not directly tackle the initial issues intended by the stakeholders in the war such as the UK and the US. For instance, while only 19 terrorists took part in the 9/11 attacks on the world Trade Center in New York, two wars have been fought in Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of the global war against terror (Cooley, 2003, P. 18). In addition, those against whom revenge was sought such as Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are long dead while military spending on the war against terror increases every other year. Although acts of terror result in serious heartbreaks for the world, it does not require that large and unjustified sums of money continue to be used in expanding the military activities of the global war on terror, more so many years after such acts were committed (Scheider & Davis, 2009, P. 49). It is obviously time for change and it is imperative upon the public to pressurize their governments to initiate policies and strategies that would lead to the serious handling of the issue of increasing military spending in the war against terror (Ricks, 2006, P. 99). In fact, some people have suggested that the only way to address terror and its effects is to negotiate with terror groups such as Al-Qaeda and their leaders. The Business Need to Dialogue with Terrorist Groups In the contemporary society, a lot of debates or talks focus on terrorism and terrorists. However, little or no talking to them is taking place. Many stakeholders are of the opinion that a bold business-oriented move to dialogue with terrorists would bring unforeseen benefits not only to the business aspects of the war on terror but also to the entire society (UN, 1994, 42). Among the objectives of these dialogues would be to educate these groups and individual terrorists on the benefits they would enjoy on shunning their radical terrorist thoughts and actions. It is rather unfortunate that many countries consider the assertion that “do not talk to terrorists’ a matter of faith. In other words, to engage in any form of dialogue with a terrorist or a terror group such as Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood and Hezbollah is tantamount to acknowledging these groups as legitimate political or social actors in the society. There are however, some experts who are of the opinion that in the absence of dialogue with terrorists, even minor or not so radical terror groups have been categorised with radical ones such as Al-Qaeda (Caruso, 2001, P. 19). Consequently, though their values may not be as radical as Al-Qaeda’s, the society groups these smaller outfits with those defined by primitive hatred for other peoples’ values. It is only through dialogue that milder terror groups that do not share the radical ideologies of groups such as Al-Qaeda may have their grievances heard and addressed. A controversial wisdom that most world leaders and policies ignore, the business or economic impacts of terrorism implies that it is only by dialoguing with terror groups that terrorism and its social and business/economic effects may be ended (Paniagua, 2008, P. 211). For businesses and economies to thrive, peace must prevail in the business environment. To build this peace, acts of terror such as bombing and suicide bombing must be stopped. Taking military action against terror groups has proved to be ineffective against terror, as evidenced by the many incidences of terror acts reported on the media on a daily basis (Hudson, 2002, P. 299). For peace to exist between terror groups and those with whom their ideologies allegedly contrast, it is vital that these parties understand their roles in envisioning peaces. Lack of understanding between terror groups and governments has only led to misguidance and misdirection on resource use and allocation in addressing the resultant conflicts (Carsten, 2008, p. 56). Thus, an adequate analysis should be the basis of appropriate international engagements between governments and terror groups, leading to the mobilization of terror groups to shun their acts (Abrahams, 2008, p. 107). Importantly, the elimination of all the barriers to working together with terror organisations such as the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) would be handy in enabling governments and their agencies or partners to identify terror society needs and doctrines. Governments should therefore adopt policies that involve the input and cooperation of all parties to conflicts, even those identified as terrorist organisations (Hoffman, 2006, p. 229). The Al-Shabaab in Somalia is an example of terror groups that governments should dialogue with since they are always ready for some form of political settlement (Accord, 2011, p. 44). The de-militarisation of all policies towards the war against terror is thus the most appropriate and less expensive strategy to adopt for the international community. Instead, a civilian-led diplomacy that promotes dialogue, peace building and partnership should be implemented. In addition, the dialogue-oriented policies adopted should not only be human-centered but also driven by relationships that seek to amicably address and solve the cycle of violence that has been bred by the militarized policies favoured by many governments (International Crisis Group, 2010, p. 243). Conclusion Since Al-Qaeda attacked the Twin Towers in New York City in 9/11/2001, the amount of money/resources spent in the global fight against terror has consistently increased in the last one decade. However, the US and her allies such as the UK and France have spent the most on the militarisation of the war on terror. Since this expenditure has increased at the peril of other more important and dire needs and crises facing the world, it has been largely described as misplaced and unjustifiable. Although some would argue that the expenditure has economic returns to the big spenders, this assertion is only true at the initial stages of any war against terror. Education, health care, investment, infrastructure are some of the sectors of the economy that have suffered considerably due to the increased spending in the militarisation of the war against terror. Dialogue with terror groups has been flouted by the business society as the alternative to military expenditures in the war against terror since the over spending observed so far only has long-term negative economic and business effects. References Abrahams, M. (2008) What terrorists really want: terrorist motives and counterterrorism strategy. International Security. Accord (2011) Whose Peace Is It Anyway? Connecting Somali and International Peace building,” Accord Policy Brief, 2010. Retrieved on April 25, 2012 from http://www.c-r.org/our-work/accord/somalia/policy-brief.php. Carsten, B. (2008) Jihadist terrorist use of strategic communication management techniques. The George C. Marshall Center Occasional Paper Series (20). Caruso, J. T. (2001) "Al-Qaeda International". Federal Bureau of Investigation. United States Department of Justice. Cook, R. (2005) "Robin Cook: The Struggle Against Terrorism Cannot Be Won by Military Means". The Guardian (UK), July 8, 2005. Cooley, J. K. (2003) Unholy wars: Afghanistan, America and international terrorism" (reprint). Demokratizatsiya. Falk, R. (2002) The great terror war. Interlink Publishing Group. George Mason University Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution (2003) Terrorism: concepts, causes, and conflict resolution. Fort Belvoir, Virginia: The Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Hoffman, B. (2006) Inside terrorism, second edition. Columbia University Press. Hudson, R. A. (2002) Who becomes a terrorist and why: the 1999 government report on profiling terrorists. Federal Research Division: The Lyons Press. Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses (2008) The Rising Cost of the Global War on Terror. Retrieved on April 26, 2012 from http://www.idsa.in/idsastrategiccomments/RisingCostoftheGlobalWaronTerror_LKBehera_010108. International Crisis Group (2010) “Somalia’s Divided Islamists.” Africa Briefing No. 1(74), 17. Lustick, I. S. (2006) Trapped in the war on terror. University of Pennsylvania Press. Noah, T. (2009) The terrorists-are-dumb theory: don't mistake these guys for criminal masterminds. Slate. Paniagua, D. (2008) Negotiating terrorism: The negotiation dynamics of four UN counter-terrorism treaties, 1997-2005. United Nations. Pastor, J. F. (2009) Terrorism & public safety policing: implications of the Obama presidency. New York: Taylor & Francis. Pew Research Center. (2007) "America's Image in the World: Findings from the Pew Global Attitudes Project". Pew Research Center. Priest, D., and Arkin, W. (2010) "A Hidden World, Growing Beyond Control". The Washington Post, July 19, 2010. Purpura, P. P. (2007) Terrorism and homeland security: an introduction with applications. Butterworth-Heinemann. Ranstorp, M. (2009) Unconventional weapons and international terrorism. Routledge. Richardson, L. (2006) What terrorists want: understanding the terrorist threat. London, UK: John Murray. Ricks, T. E. (2006) Fiasco: the American military adventure in Iraq, sixth edition. Penguin Press HC. Ricolfi, L. (2005) Palestinians 1981–2003. In Gambetta, Diego. Making sense of suicide missions (first edition). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Scheider, B., and Davis, J. (2009) Avoiding the abyss: progress, shortfalls and the way ahead in combating the WMD threat. Greenwood Publishing Group. Sturr, C. (2006) U.S. military spending and the cost of the wars. (Economy in numbers): An article from: Dollars & Sense. Thompson Gale. Summers, A., and Swan, R. (2011) The eleventh day: the full story of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden. New York: Ballantine. UN (1994) The 1994 United Nations Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism annex to UN General Assembly resolution 49/60. The United Nations. Wilkinson, P. (1997) The Media and Terrorism: A Reassessment. Terrorism and Political Violence, 9(2), 64. Wood, M. J., Douglas, K. M., and Sutton, R. M. (2012) Dead and alive: beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories. Social Psychological and Personality Science. Wright, L. (2006) The looming tower: Al-Qaeda and the road to 9/11. Knopf. Read More