The War on Terror - Research Paper Example

War on terror: It was September 2001 when the world watched live on television as the twin towers in the United States were brought down by planes that had been turned to missiles. The Pentagon was also damaged. These were considered to be the acts of terrorists. Osama Bin Laden was named as the man behind the terrorist attacks which were openly and seriously condemned the world over. This was to be the beginning of the war on terror. According to Benhan, Amnesty International regards the definitions of terrorism as very wide and varied. This in itself creates certain problems in that the definitions have been taken to criminalize government s and even individuals who seems to be against or is out of favour with those in power. The war on Iraq is a good example of this. Iraq had long fallen out with the US. Accordingly, the war on terror has been said to be responsible for the influence into the formulation of certain policies. For instance, how suspects are to be treated and even how personal privacy can be breached all in the name of security. As far as foreign policy is concerned, the United States seems to have used the war on terror to pursue some very aggressive policies. For this it has earned open criticism and condemnation from many different quarters. These policies are on the political, economic and military fronts. (2007) The war on Iraq is a true demonstration of this. It is openly clear that the war on terror was used in more ways than one to make sense of the war against Iraq. The people were openly against a war in Iraq but the President Bush and his administration went ahead with it anyway making use of forged documents and giving misleading information to gain the approval and support of the American people. Careful analysis of the war on terror reveals instances of double speak where language was used to hide the true intentions of the government. The fact is that there were no links to terrorism that were openly visible and real in Iraq. Somehow even President Bush appeared to think so. This is probably why he resorted to using the forged documents. (Braun, 2008) So, there had to be some other reason that the Bush administration was keen on the war in Iraq. Conversely, while Afghanistan was the first to be targeted in the war on terror, being bombed by the United States in the search for Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorist group, after some time the war shifted focus and Iraq became the target. So why the shift Iraq has a long history with the United States. When Iraq had attacked Iran, the US had been openly supportive. In addition to supplying Iraq with over 5 billion dollars worth of finances, it also supplied intelligence information and heavy apparatus in the form of trucks and even other machinery. The reason the US was openly involved and supported was so that it could make sure that Saddam Hussein won the war and Teheran, especially the Islamic radicals therein, was humiliated. It was in the 1980's when President George Bush, the senior, adopted the policy of accommodation as far as Iraq was concerned. In the policy the US would be able to gain access to the oil in the Persian Gulf as well as the security of certain friendly states in the region. However, the rapport was to fall after the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. (Tirman, 2001) Thus, there are various reasons why the United States focused its attention on Iraq as opposed to Afghanistan as far as the war on terror was concerned. First of all, Iraq was no longer in the good books of the US, not since the time it invaded Kuwait. Before then, the US was able to look the other way even in instances when it was clear that Iraq was committing serious offences and crimes right under its nose. However, the most convincing reason would have to be that Iraq has massive oil reserves which the US wanted to take for itself and exercise control over. In the global arena and especially in politics, countries act by way of leverage and oil is an important tool. Think of all the power and influence that comes with the position of oil. They can use it to influence other countries to sing to their tune, the oil/petrol dollars would attest to this. This was especially true in the face of the unstable nature of the Saudi subservience. Also given the oil and energy needs of the United States and the frequent fluctuations in the oil markets, the US had the more reason to focus on Iraq rather than Afghanistan. According to the Middle East Times, Iraq is strategically more important than Afghanistan. More over, Benhan posits that Iraq has bountiful oil reserves while Afghanistan is only in possession of rocks and difficult terrain. (2007) However, the strategic importance of Afghanistan is that it provides the most direct course towards the very oil rich Caspian basin. Again, Shalom & Albert opine that it seemed that the US was sending some kind of message to the world. By waging war on Iraq, the US was in a way trying to communicate that countries which were wise or foolish enough to disentangle themselves from the control of the US that there would be a price to pay. Countries were clamouring to remove themselves and policies from the hold of America and in the process put a stop to the suffering and damage that they were experiencing as a result of corporate globalization spearheaded by the United States. (2002) The role of the elites in the United States is also a factor into why the US chose to focus on Iraq rather than on Afghanistan. Elites in any country more often than not influence the policies therein. There are often in support of the policies that seek to serve their interests. Thus, it would be correct to say that the US would not have adopted a stance which the elites were not openly supportive of. At that particular time it was in their agenda and interests that focus be on Iraq and not on Afghanistan. Not focusing on Iraq would be a permissible and ethical approach to the international problem that was terrorism and the elites were not having that; that is not what they were interested in. (Shalom & Albert, 2002) According to Shalom & Albert, another important reason why the US chose Iraq has to do with President Bush and his administration seeking to divert the attention away from the state of the US economy and especially the corruption that had been exposed in the run up to the November elections. (2002) At the time the United States was not doing very well economically and the war on Iraq served as the perfect decoy. Iraq versus Afghanistan. The amount of resources that has been spent in the war on terror and consequently in Iraq and Afghanistan are of immense proportions. Stiglitz & Bilmes are of the argument that President Bush and his administration miscalculated on both the benefits and the cost of the war. They apparently did not anticipate the war costing as much as it did. From the military to the hard cash, billions probably even trillions of dollars has been spent. For instance, it is estimated that military operations alone in the wars have already directly cost the United States more than the 12 year Vietnam War, or the Gulf War or even World War One. The Iraqi war has been said to cost and estimated 400 000 dollars for an individual troop. (2008) After five years of the war in Iraq, the costs are projected to surpass a whooping 12.5 billion dollars a month in the year 2008. This figure is staggering considering it is only for operations in Iraq alone. This demonstrates an increase of 8.1 billion dollars in the figures from 2003. On the other hand, operations in Afghanistan spend about 16 billion dollars in one month. All this money spent and it does not even factor in the 500 billion dollars spent each and every year as part of the defence department's regular expense. More over, there are the additional costs in the form of death settlement for the soldiers who die while in service. In total, the figure could be said to amount to more than 3 trillion dollars. (Stiglitz & Bilmes, 2008) All this spending has been for the purpose of controlling the two countries. As is evident, the US seems to have more control in Iraq for the simple reason that it also spends quite a sizeable chunk of the money there. On more than one occasion, President Bush got Congress to pass the funding bills including the famous emergency war spending bill. According to McKeeby, the funds were used for such activities as helping the democratically elected government in Iraq deal with the wide spread violence. (2007) However, the same cannot be said for Afghanistan; the US government spends less in Afghanistan than it does in Iraq. The consequence of this is that it has less government control and has not been able to contain the terrorist activities therein. With most troops withdrawn from Afghanistan and instead transferred to Iraq, the government only has itself to blame for the rising Taliban insurgency. Without the necessary troops how else were they going to be successful in Afghanistan Why focus should be more directed towards Afghanistan. The war in Iraq seriously diverted attention away from Afghanistan. Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, the US shifted all attention to Afghanistan to capture Osama Bin Laden and bring him to trial. With the war on Iraq, most of the American resources in terms of even the military were however directed from Afghanistan. According to Tirman (2001), armed actions that are also aggressive in nature more often than not result in even more violent responses with other consequences such as untold human misery, subjection, death and destruction. More over, such military actions such as the war on terror have resulted in the involvement of the neighbouring countries such as Pakistan and Iran, in addition to magnifying Islamic military emotions all over the world. It is openly clear that Afghan refugees have fled into neighbouring Pakistan. This in itself presents other challenges. Not only does it end in the suffering of countless people, but it also provides a fertile ground for the rise of militancy and violence. It is important that the US focuses on Afghanistan for the simple reason that failure to do so will have important ramifications. Already there is a massive pouring of refugees into neighbouring Iran. Furthermore, the war on terror has been responsible for the breeding of anti American sentiments amid the Muslims and the moderate Muslims in the region. If not checked, all these might undermine the stability of Iran. Iran was well on the road towards nationalism and democracy but the war on terror may have taken it some steps back. The United States was in more ways than one provoking Teheran with the claims that it was sponsoring terrorism and terrorist activities, hand in hand with the Taliban and Saddam. (Tirman, 2001) According to the Middle East Times, the US should focus on Afghanistan for the simple reason that the problem was not adequately addressed. The war on Iraq had resulted in most resources including the military being diverted from Afghanistan. Thus, not only was the country not stabilized but also the Al-Qaeda leadership was given the chance to escape. With too few troops in Afghanistan, the Taliban are rising fast and are a threat to both the US and NATO forces. As the now President elect, Barack Obama, put it, there is need for more troops, more resources and urgency to deal with the Taliban before the situation gets out of control. (2008) Hence, it is important that focus is on Afghanistan seeing that there are more serious and complex issues of concern. Not only is the leadership of Al Qaeda located therein, but Afghanistan is also the hub in the trafficking of narcotics. In addition, there is the whole issue of Pakistan and its nuclear weapons. Clearly, the stakes are much higher in Afghanistan. (Singh, 2008) First in line is the border issue. Afghanistan has what can be termed as porous borders. The border of concern is the one that it shares with Pakistan that is also unmanned. Singh argues that while government forces are in control of this area, the Taliban and Al Qaeda are totally unconcerned. The result then is that it becomes a kind of a battle ground from which the enemy, Taliban and Al Qaeda, can stage attacks against the US and NATO forces. Already, there has been evidence towards the rise of insurgency therein. For the US to be successful on this front, there is need for some kind of partnership with Pakistan especially on the issue of border control security. Again, it is required that the US put rules in place that will allow its operations to cross over into the Pakistani borders as part of its efforts to counter any rebellions. (2008) According to Singh, (2008) Afghanistan has become the hub of narcotics over the years. It is estimated that over 90% of the heroin in the world comes from the region. With all the money made from the heroin, conscription, backing, guidance and deployment of insurgents and terrorists becomes that much easier. However, the money is also used by the local populations to improve their standards of living. A lasting solution is needed because whichever way one looks at it, there are grounds for even more serious issues arising. It is important that the heroin problem is dealt with. This will go a long way in cutting off the funding sources of the Taliban which will be sure to destabilize them. However, this might be counter productive, care has to be taken because curtailing the production and sell of heroin will mean doom for the simple Afghan families who rely on it for survival. This is because without a means of livelihood, they might be forced to link up with the extremists' which is not good news at all. It would also be a plus for Afghanistan to be brought to back to the path of democracy. As much as Iraq has been damaged in the war, it has had the pleasure of enjoyed modernity which cannot be said for Afghanistan. Singh posits that while Iraq can be rebuilt, Afghanistan needs to infrastructure and central control to be instituted from scratch especially in those tribal areas where most of the conflict has been taking place. (2008) '08 Presidential platforms. Probably the focus will be shifted towards Afghanistan again. It is already clear that Washington wants to win over Iran which is not possible if the Taliban situation in Afghanistan is not addressed. Washington is keen on a stable Iran. However, Afghanistan continues to be a threat so more troops might be deployed with President Barrack Obama in the White House. It is worth noting that Obama, the President elect, was openly a critic of the policies of former President Bush as far as the war on terror was concerned. It should also be pointed out that Obama has not been supportive of policies by President Bush and his administration to place way too many troops in Iraq while leaving very few in Afghanistan. To Obama, the President elect, this was a very serious foreign policy blunder that was characteristic of the Bush administration. According to the Middle East Times, now that he will be President, troops might be withdrawn from Iraq and into Afghanistan so as to counter the Taliban surge especially against the US and the NATO forces and to strengthen the border with Pakistan. The Taliban are rising fast and they need to be dealt with urgency before they become uncontrollable again. (2008) Cooper, Carter, Ellis, Hossain & Mclean opine that the troops that deserve to be left in Iraq are those that will be charged with the duties of protecting US diplomats and sometimes carrying out strikes on Al Qaeda. (2008) Conclusion. The war on terror, which in the end turned into an oil war, has been in more ways than one a failure. President Bush and his administration applied military aggression in both Iraq and Afghanistan. While initially the focus had been on Afghanistan, it soon shifted to Iraq. Probably, the most important reason why the focus shifted has to do with the presence of oil in Iraq. There is no way the United States could have legitimately put claim to the vast oil deposits in Iraq unless it used some other tactics. It could not have been war on terrorism but the links between Saddam and Al Qaeda were not all that evident. So the Bush administration thought doctoring information would work which it did and troops were deployed into Iraq. Besides, the elite in the United States also had a part to play in the shift of focus from Afghanistan to Iraq. Elites are driven by interests and it was in their interest that they support the war in Iraq. Suffice is to say, they were interested in oil. In the process, thousands of lives were destroyed, American, Afghan and Iraqi. Moreover, property was destroyed (in the Iraqi and Afghan countries) and more than three trillion dollars spent with nothing to really show for it. However, there is need for another shift to occur, this time right back to Afghanistan. With very few troops being deployed in Afghanistan and the budget low, it seems like the Taliban are again being presented with an opportunity to rise again. They are surging slowly maybe surely but they need to be stopped. It is up to the US to find a lasting solution to the unmanned Afghan border with Pakistan as this is where the insurgency is most likely to rise. More over, the US also needs to address the narcotics (heroin) issue. It is from the proceeds of heroin that the terrorists and insurgents obtain the money to keep their terrorist activities alive and kicking. Nonetheless, this is a sensitive issue because if dealt with in the wrong way will result in even more Afghan people joining the extremists making Afghanistan even more unstable. With the US elections behind us now, there is more hope. With Barrack Obama, the President elect in office, it will not be long before troops are withdrawn from Iraq and more sent over to Afghanistan. Barrack Obama has always held that the Bush administration policies did not deal with the issue that is Afghanistan with the urgency it deserved. This war on terror has only served to make the threat of international terrorism even more of a reality. The biggest losses then are to the United States. It has destabilized the Middle East which has important ramifications. Oil fluctuations will continue to haunt. In addition, it has lost the global prestige it once held. It will be a long road back to glory. References. Benhan Richard W. 'From Afghanistan to Iraq: Connecting the dots with oil'. AlterNet. (2007). 13 November 2008 Braun, Harry. American double speak. n.d. 12 November 2008 Cooper, Helene, Carter, Shan, Ellis, Jonathan, Hossain, Farhana & Mclean, Allan. 'On the issues: Iraq and Afghanistan'. The New York Times. (November 13, 2008). 13 November 2008 Mckeeby, David. 'Bush urges Congressional support for Iraq, Afghanistan mission'. America.gov. (2007). 13 November 2008 Middle East Times. 'Bush orders more troops to Afghanistan-five years too late'. (September, 10 2008). 13 November 2008 Shalom, Stephen R. & Albert, Michael. 'Iraq on the verge of war'. ZMagazine. (2002). Stiglitz, Joseph & Bilmes, Linda. 'The three trillion dollar war: The cost of the Iraqi and Afghanistan conflicts has grown to staggering proportions'. The Times. (February 23, 2008). 13 November 2008 Tirman, John. 'Unintended consequences'. AlterNet. (2001). 13 November 2008 Vikram, Singh. 'Afghanistan is not Iraq: Reasons to be wary of another surge'. World Politics Review. (25 July 2008). 13 November 2008 Read More