Has the War on Terror made the American people more safe - Research Paper Example

Has the ‘War on Terror’ made the American people safer? Introduction Having addressed the nation shortly after the deadly attacks on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush pronounced that America is at war with international terrorism1. This metaphor, aka the ‘war on terror’, almost instantaneously gained currency, being adopted by federal and local bureaucracies and the US military as well2. Although the term terrorism is still not that clearly defined, many people accepted the idea of war on terrorism3. Thus, the ‘war on terror’ came to denote the US government counter-terrorism efforts both at home and abroad, but whether or not these efforts helped Americans to feel safer is another matter altogether. The Arguments For and Against The ‘War on Terror’ has generally made the American citizens safer because: 1. Apart from certain legitimacy doubts, the US military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are credited with moving the hostilities into enemy’s territory. 2. The drone attacks used by CIA and the US military, targeting terrorist leaders, groups and safe havens, have made terrorists more anxious about their safety, rather than plotting acts of terror. 3. The elimination of key al-Qaida leaders, most notably Osama bin Laden, has allowed the US an opportunity to “disrupt, dismantle, and ultimately defeat al-Qaida”4. 4. The efforts to prevent terrorists from entering the United States and operating freely inside the US borders, as well as the massive investments in aerospace control, aviation security and screening, and maritime and border security, considerably minimized the risk of terrorist actions5. 5. Community engagement against Islamist-inspired radicalization and recruitment, along with information sharing among the law enforcement organizations, deprive terrorists of their financial support and raw recruits6. The ‘War on Terror’ has failed to make Americans safer because: 1. The terrorism ‘root causes’ assumption, which became a key component of the US counter-terrorism policy ever since 9/11, has proved to be more or less a “popular misconception”7. Hence, significant part of the US counter-terrorism efforts was of little avail. 2. Since terrorist generally seek to kill people and destroy property in pursuit of their goals, the number of terrorists’ targets in the US – with over 5 million commercial buildings – is essentially infinite8. 3. Many homeland security measures have been designed to deal with large threats, whereas considerably destructive terrorist acts can be perpetrated by a small group, or even a single individual9. 4. The terrorist targets’ selection is quite often a random process, rather than a product of grand planning, which makes efforts to determine terrorists’ intent a bit problematic10. 5. Protection measures have their negative effects, including direct costs, negative economic impact, inconvenience, fear and reduction of liberties11. Reasoning behind the arguments for and against There are many speculations about the real impact the US military campaigns, most notably in Afghanistan, had on terrorist networks such as al-Qaida and its affiliates and adherents, and their capabilities to target the territory of the United States. The opponents of the Bush administration’s aggressive policy aimed at disrupting and degrading al-Qaida and its affiliates argue that the use of US military overseas did very little, if anything, to protect the American people at home. Their reasoning is broadly based on the assumptions that violence, more often than not, produces violence, and that pursuing terrorists is not the armed forces’ job. To a degree or another, such reasoning may have its merits because the civil casualties alongside the civilian property and infrastructure destruction caused by the American army strikes in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as by the CIA’s undeclared drone war in Pakistan, could be hardly justified. The death of a family member by American hand is pretty likely to make another member of this family an anti-American terrorist. Despite the prima facie logic of such assumptions, the American military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, especially the former, achieved at least two significant goals in regard to the safety of American people. The first is that the hostilities were moved to the enemy territory, or in other words, al-Qaida’s infrastructure, hence operational capabilities were as badly damaged as the American pride and an invulnerability feeling on September 11, 2001. The second major goal achieved – well, more or less – is that terrorist became more anxious about their own security and the safety of their families, rather than plotting strikes against the US in the comfort of their safe heavens. It’s particularly true in regard to the use drones in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan, where a number of top Taliban leaders were assassinated and their chain of command was temporarily disrupted. One would argue that ‘temporarily’ is the key word here, but it should be taken into consideration the fact that not all leaders are possessed of equal abilities, whether in terms of tactical, strategic or leadership dexterity, and the elimination of one has the potential to harm the whole organization. Nevertheless, the opposite – the next leader to be better than its predecessor – is pretty likely either. Additionally, al-Qaida is recently considered an umbrella organization, where the terrorist activities are carried out by a “loose conglomeration of semi-autonomous groups”12. However, the use of drones has obviously proved successful insofar as this program was initiated by the Bush Administration and dramatically increased under President Obama, being defined by the CIA Director, Leon Panetta as the “only game in town”13. The aforesaid by no means comes to denote that the achieved objectives abroad guarantee the safety of American people at home; moreover the war in Afghanistan is far from the endgame. But the success of operations such as the raid on bin Laden’s safe house in Pakistan and the consequent assassination of the world’s most wanted terrorist is undoubted in terms of sending clear message to any terrorist organization about the likely price of their actions. And if that approach has prevented even one terrorist event on US territory – either because the terrorists designated to perform the action died in a drone attack or were necessitated to hide in order to keep their hopes alive – it might have saved human lives and properties from being annihilated. The Homeland security measures play a major role in the American counter-terrorist strategy and could be defined as a variety of interrelated activities, including aviation security and screening, aerospace control, maritime and border security, cooperation between law enforcement officials and organizations, blocking the flow of financial resources to terrorist groups, etc.1415 These efforts bore some fruit in terms that terrorist groups and individuals – especially international and home-grown jihadists – increasingly find themselves in not as hospitable environment as the US used to be until 9/11. The terrorist communication monitoring and cutting off the financial flows to and among terrorist organizations are believed to have disrupted the terrorist facilitation and support activities to a considerable degree16. Additionally, the protection of critical infrastructure and key assets, as well as the safety precautions against terrorist events, are thought to have diminished the number of potential terrorist targets, along with the amount of casualties and destruction. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that people and vulnerable property are abundant in the US, which makes it difficult to decide which one couldn’t be a target17. Therefore, the number of potential terrorist targets could be defined as practically infinite18. This is further supplemented by the fact that considerably destructive terrorist acts can be perpetrated by a small group, or even a single individual, while the terrorist targets’ selection is more often a random process, rather than a product of grand planning19. Taken together, all these not only make efforts to determine terrorists’ intent a bit problematic, but also would account for the “displacement effect”, where terrorist change targets depending on local circumstances20. The widespread opinion that there is a linkage between terrorism, socio-economic conditions (poverty) and political grievances – brought into existence the ‘root causes’ assumption, which, in turn, became a key component of the US counter-terrorism policy ever since 9/1121. Given the complex nature of terrorism, however, such simplistic ‘cause-effect’ assumptions have only resulted in misconceptions, hence a waste of efforts and resources. Finally, the direct cost of both military interventions abroad and homeland security measures, along with the negative economic impact, inconvenience, fear, and reduction of liberties, could be hardly considered to have reinforced the Americans’ feeling that the war on terror made them safer. Conclusion The ‘war on terror’, as comprised of a set of overarching policies and policy goals, has certainly improved the American citizens’ degree of security, at least in terms that considerably impeded the terrorist activities both at home and abroad. Given the complex nature of terrorism however, as well as the fact that there are flaws in the US counter-terrorism strategy which badly need to be addressed, it’d be rather optimistic to say that the ‘war on terror’ is the silver bullet that might put an end to terrorism. Notes Read More