Operation Enduring Freedom as a Response to the 9\11 Attack - Research Paper Example

Operation Enduring Freedom was an appropriate Counter-Terrorism response to the 9/11 attacks Table of Contents Introduction 2 Operation Enduring Freedom 3 Counter Terrorism 7 Conclusions 11 References 12 Bibliography 14 Introduction There is little doubt that September 9th of 2001 is a black day in the history of mankind and also the darkest saga of the American History. On the sunny sky of New York, that morning, two gigantic Boeing airplanes attacked America’s priced possession, The World Trade Centre and within a couple of hour, devastated the two sky-kissing incarnation of architecture and technology to a ground zero. New York was eclipsed by a series of suicidal attacks by Al-Qaeda terrorists by hijacking four commercial passenger jet airliners. This horrifying terrorist attack was literally a slap on the face of America and a bold scratch on the gigantic imperialist scheme of things. The attack killed 2,973 victims and 19 hijackers (Alfano, 2006). The Al-Qaeda, headed by the world’s greatest terrorist Osama-bin-Laden took the responsibility on their shoulder. It not only moved the American government and the present president George. W. Bush II, but also terrorized the entire world. The horrifying and the awful sight telecasted live all over the world brought tear to the eyes and shiver down the spines of the citizens of all across the globe. Numerous diplomatic, military and economic policies were taken by the world’s largest super power to minimize the effect of September 11 and Operation Enduring Freedom was one such major diplomatic and military policy taken by the Bush government to reply the gruesome attack on the nation. Operation Enduring Freedom Operation Enduring Freedom or popularly known as OEF, is the official name given to the mission carried out by U.S. government to completely uproot the terrorist activities in Afghanistan along with three other relatively smaller military actions under the umbrella term of the GWOT or Global War On Terror. Initially, this operation was carried out with the name of “Operation Infinite Justice” but later on it was renamed to avoid any kind of offense on those believers of Islam. The term OEF is typically used for the mission held in the form of a devastating war in Afghanistan. On October 7th 2001, the US army attacked Afghanistan and the declaration of this attack and mission was made public on September 20th 2001, when the former president Bush addressed the nation and a Joint Session of Congress. Operation Enduring Freedom comprised of these major attacks and mission: Operation Enduring Freedom – Afghanistan known by the name of OEF-A Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines known by the name of OEF-P also formerly known as Operation Freedom Eagle Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa or known by the name OEF-HOA Operation Enduring Freedom - Trans Sahara or more popularly known by the name of OEF-TS (Global Security, n.d.). On September 20th of the same year, Bush made the public announcement that Osama bin Laden is responsible for the 9/11 attacks and made it very clear on behalf of the US government the following five points of ultimatum: Deliver to the U.S. all the leaders of Al-Qaeda Release of all foreign prisoners Closing down of all the terrorist training camps from immediate effect Handing over of each and every terrorist and their supporters to the concerned and appropriate authorities Handing over the power to United States to view, inspect and supervise of all the terrorist training camps. (CNN, 2001). The Afghanistan government viewed this proposal as a threat to their sovereignty and put forward a negative response to the proposal of the US government and as a result of it Afghanistan was scathingly attacked and a vehement mass killing was the consequent of the war. No war in the world brings positive outcome. This war led to an economic depression both in America and in many other nations of the world. This counter-terrorism operation led to many more terrorist outbursts especially in the subcontinent of India and Middle East. It also led to the terrorist attack of London metro, sequel blast in the Mumbai Local trains and the powerful blast at the hotel Marriot in Pakistan itself. Richard Jackson authored a book named Writing war on Terrorism. This book documents the first hand experience and expression of the victims of war directly associated with it or indirectly concerned. It is a public language against terrorism where it is clearly stated with references and examples from real life that the way “the rhetoric has been used to justify the global counter-terrorism offensive as a response to 9/11. It discusses how the language was manipulated to agitate public anxiety regarding the terrorist threats to gather support for the military attacks at Afghanistan and the abuse of Iraqi prisoners were normalized through rhetoric and practice.” (Jackson, n.d.). The author of this book also scathingly attacked and explained in its true vain that war on terrorism is damaging the society’s ethical values and the “normalization and institutionalization” of the governments counter-terrorism attacks are nothing but a pre-planned scheme of the dominant political narrative in America for the enjoyment of a widespread bipartisan and popular support. The emancipator goal according to Richard became secondary in the war and the imperialist policy of the nations like US and UK became more dominant. Taking away thousands of innocent life to protect the sovereignty of a nation cannot be supported at any sensible realm. If terrorism is taking away lives, then the counter-terrorism attack in the name of OEF also took away several innocent lives within the nations that dwelled in those areas. Jackson further in his book describes that the attempt of the Bush government to give a sense to the counter-terrorism attack in the regions of Afghanistan is completely vague. The justification for a ‘global war on terrorism’ and use of such many more elite phrase is a deliberate attempt to cover the horrifying bloody face of America under the banner of protecting the sovereignty of the nation. The more serious contention is given by Richardson in his second part of the book where he says that the counter - attack was not spontaneous but rather playfully conceived to shape and accomplish many domestic as well as foreign projects. If we turn the pages of modern history and give a close inspection to it then, we will find that the 9/11 was an attack majorly launched on America for the first time and it was expected from a powerful block like US to show more patience and perseverance towards dealing with the issue. Operation Enduring Freedom is a major set back in the domain of human rights. America’s policy to bring a complete devastation and killing innocent lives for the cost of few terrorist hidden in the area cannot be justified by any means. US could have taken a bit more time before launching the counter-terrorist attack and a bit more sensibility was always expected from the only thriving superpower of the world that have such huge banners of modernization. Modernization in its truest sense believes in the growth of humanity rather totally devastating it. This kind of an insensible act is never expected from the most modern nation of the world. The issue could have been easily handled diplomatically by implementing and withdrawing various foreign aid, support and venture. Initially the agenda of the US government seemed to be protecting the sovereignty of the nation and for that reason they clearly demanded the leadership of Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to be handed over. But a more patience and diplomatic strategy implementation would have been formulated before waging a war. With the progress of the operation, somewhere the initial agenda of the counter - terrorist attack became vague and many more other issues started becoming a priority for the US government. Here lies the greatest failure of the counter-attack. The attack was framed for a purpose and carried forward with some other economic and political motif which became obvious with time. Counter Terrorism Counter – terrorism is one of the most widely used terms in the present perspective of the human life. Today, the term has a permanent place in the news paper and the electronic media headlines. In simple words, the meaning and the concept of counter – terrorism comprises of the strategies and the techniques that the various uniformed forces of the government (like that of the police, the militaries, the para – militaries, the government) initiate to fight the threat and the challenge of the terrorist organizations. The tem counter – terrorism includes response to both real as well as imputed threats. One basic difference in between the similar like terms of counter- terrorism and that of anti- terrorism is that the counter – terrorism is a much aggressive term where as anti – terrorism is defensive in nature. Counter – terrorism includes the measures that prevent the insurgents or the terrorists to successfully use the medium of terrorism. NATO defines counter – terrorism as “Operations that include the offensive measures taken to prevent, deter, preempt, and respond to terrorism” (Joint Electronic Library, 2009). On the flip side, the term anti – terrorism basically means the tactics used to reduce the chances of vulnerability of any place or of any events from that of terrorist attack. The US force defines anti – terrorism as “Defensive measures used to reduce the vulnerability of individuals and property to terrorist acts, to include limited response and containment by local military and civilian forces” (Joint Electronic Library, 2009). It has been perceived that the concept of counter – terrorism through the policy like “Operation Enduring Freedom” just after the 9/11 by the United States administration was not at all directed to end the evil impact of terrorism. In order to curve the ever – rising impact of terrorism, the administration of the most powerful nation, waged was against terror. The back drop of such a counter terrorism policy had been the attacks on the three famous destinations of the United States on the 11th September of 2001. The fact is that the above mentioned attacks on the United States have been the first one in the recent past by the terrorism outfits. There are many other countries in the world that has been rocked by the affects of terrorism every now and then. Special mention in this regard includes that of India (Mumbai, Delhi and Ahmedabad), United Kingdom (London), Israel, Russia and many other nations. But no such country or its administration ever launched such ‘war against terror’ and allowed the uniformed troops to almost invade a foreign country. Also, the fact that such an immature policy resulted in much more casualties for the United States army than the total number of deaths in the 9/11 attacks. The number of protests and rallies that rocked America time and again against the policies of the own government (for the purpose of whom, the government is supposed to work) ratifies the fact that even the general public of the most developed nation would have been satisfied if a different method could be used by the administration led by G. W. Bush, to combat terrorism. A major demerit of the process that the Republican government of United States undertook was that, it was almost like of ‘an eye to the eye’. Such a measure invariably gave birth to hundreds of Mohamed Attas. With the power that the Taliban had in the region of Afghanistan (and North – Western Pakistan) along with that of the very different land structures with inaccessible hills in the region, the administration of America just pushed its uniformed troops in to the mouth of the big cat of the region. The counter - terrorism methods could have been much different as suggested by the United Nations: Increased international efforts – Instead of sending troops to a foreign nation, the United States could well have tried to develop international ventures and supports to curve away the Taliban from the general mass of Afghanistan. The United States should have put more effort to bring the international community together to fight the evils of terrorism. Also, the country should have taken measures to strengthen the government of the disturbed land. Assistance of Development – Being the global leader, the United States should have taken added initiative to provide the much required assistance to the sovereign governments of the disturbed land. The US could well contribute towards the economic prosperity of the country along with basic requirements like health and education so that the citizens do not get indulge in such activities. Promotion of equality – Along with the political stability, the United States could also have put their resources towards restoring democracy in the country. Also, being the champion of human rights in her own states, the United States should have promoted the causes of equality in the countries where terrorists and other fundamental and radical groups almost rule the country. Resource management – Almost all of the disturbed and developing nations of the world are dependent on the United States in lieu of funds and other support. In place of ‘Enduring Operation Freedom’, the administration of G. W. Bush could put certain reservations on aids and other factors, which would have prompted the national governments of such country to work strictly to curve terrorism. Consensus building towards the initiatives of the United Nations – The United States should not have acted the way it had to counter – terrorism. The government of the country should have exhibited more desire to build up international consensus and should have taken the views of the international bodies like United Nations in order to handle the situation effectively and efficiently. (Quaker Council for European Affairs, 2007). Conclusions Richard Jackson has penned down his well thought views on the war against terrorism in the book named “Writing the War on Terrorism: Politics and Counter – Terrorism”. Jackson has intelligently opined that the way United States has promoted the counter – terrorism mechanism as the ‘war against terrorism” and the way the country funded its operations, it all suggests that the ‘Third World War’ has commenced. Jackson holds the view that it is only the United States that holds the right of declaring war against any other nation and named such methodology to be ‘Bush Doctrine’. Jackson is also of the view that such war on terrorism calls for huge finding and is directed much by belief and assumptions which should have been the case (Jackson, 2005). It can be assessed that “Operation Enduring Freedom” might have had certain immediate successes despite huge casualties, thanks to the technology the America possess, but in the long run, the policy might give birth to hundreds of terrorists. It can be said without much hesitation and doubt that the situation could have been handled in a different way and most importantly in a much better fashion. References Alfano, S., 2006. War Casualties Pass 9/11 Death Toll. CBS News. [Online] Available at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/22/terror/main2035427.shtml [Accessed 12 January, 2010]. CNN, 2001. U.S. rejects Taliban offer to try bin Laden. War against Terror. [Online] Available at: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/ret.us.taliban/ [Accessed 12 January, 2010]. Global Security, No Date. Operation Enduring Freedom – Afghanistan. Military. [Online] Available at: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/enduring-freedom.htm [Accessed 12 January, 2010]. Jackson, R. Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics and Counter-terrorism. Manchester University Press, 2005. Jackson, R. No Date. Writing the war on terrorism. The University of Manchester – Manchester University Press. [Online] Available at: http://www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/catalogue/book.asp?id=1011 [Accessed 12 January, 2010]. Joint Electronic Library, 2009. News. DOD Directory. [Online] Available at: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/index.html [Accessed 12 January, 2010]. Quaker Council for European Affairs, 2007. A Critical Assessment of European Union Responses. Effective Counter-Terrorism. [Online] Available at: http://www.quaker.org/qcea/peace/EffectiveCounterTerrorism.pdf [Accessed 12 January, 2010]. Bibliography Anti War, No Date. News. Highlights. [Online] Available at: http://www.antiwar.com/ [Accessed 12 January, 2010]. Buckley, M. Global Responses to Terrorism. London: Routledge, 2003. Department of Defense, 2006. Network Centric Operations. [Online] Available at: http://www.ndu.edu/CTNSP/pubs/TF_50_OEF.pdf [Accessed 12 January, 2010]. English, R. Terrorism: How to Respond. Oxford: OUP, 2009. Galula, D. Pacification of Algeria 1956-1958. Santa Monica: Rand Cooperation, 2006. La Guardia, A., 2006. Iran hits back at 'warmonger' Bush. The Telegraph. [Online] Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/1509475/Iran-hits-back-at-warmonger-Bush.html [Accessed 12 January, 2010]. Wardlaw, G. Political Terrorism: Theory, Tactics and Counter-measures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Wilkinson, P. Terrorism versus Democracy: the Liberal State Response. London: Frank Cass, 2000. Read More