Terrorist Control Improving - Essay Example

Crisis and control The 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United s was a mass murder and it was important to track down the perpetrators of the heinous crime to prevent further such atrocities. The world came to know that the Al-Qaeda was responsible for the attacks. The attack was not only towards the United States but to all the nations that lost citizens in the two blocks of the World Trade Centre. The Al-Qaeda terrorist movement had its international nerve centre in Afghanistan. The extremist Taliban government of Afghanistan and the Al-Qaeda was so closely interconnected that there could not be a military action on one of them and only a simultaneous attack could weaken the terrorist outfit. Therefore targeting the Al-Qaeda terrorists also required attacking the Taliban regime(Fox, S. 2004 p.4). The magnitude of suffering and devastation undergone by the United States urged the government to wage war against the perpetrators. War was the only option because the terrorists outfit was supported by Afghanistan and there was no diplomatic option through international agencies to sort out the issue. Politically, America was not in a position to deploy limited retaliatory missile attack, depend on law enforcement, issue economic sanctions or utilise diplomacy related sanctions. These methods would not be adequate to prevent or reduce further threats or attacks due to the peculiar nature of the Taliban government. Afghanistan did not have much contact with outside world other than the diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The UN had refused the representation of Afghanistan by the Taliban government and was considered as a pariah state for crimes against humanity and severe human rights abuses. These factors added to America’s concern that the Al-Qaeda and the Taliban be treated as legitimate enemies that planned and carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks. The then President of the United States, Bush proposed a number of non-negotiable demands to the Taliban regime that focused exclusively to punish and coerce Al-Qaeda. The demands included: the immediate transfer of the Al-Qaeda leadership and Osama bid Laden to the United States and the termination of the presence of the outfit in Afghanistan, the release of all foreigners imprisoned in Afghanistan and the protection of religious personnel, international humanitarian workers, journalists and diplomats, closure of all terrorist training camps and provide access to the US to terrorist funding sources and training facilities. The American president had made it clear that these demands were non-debatable and the failure of Taliban to comply would lead them to share the fate of the Al-Qaeda. The failure of the Taliban to meet the American requirements finally led to the invasion of Afghanistan to prevent additional attacks (Dolan, C.J. 2005 p.103) The U.S. war on terrorism is justifiable because the Taliban government did not cooperate even after providing enough evidence against the Al-Qaeda and the failure to handover the suspects for trial. It was also clear from the various evidence collected post the September 11, 2001 attacks that the attacks were a part of a continuing campaign of terrorism towards the United States and its allies. The Bush administration insisted to the Security Council that it had to exercise the inherent right of self defence and it was necessary to attack the military base of the Taliban government. The refusal of the Taliban to suppress the Al-Qaeda and the detailed evidence of Al-Qaeda’s plan to attack the United States left the latter with no other option but with satisfactory reason for the imminence and the necessity as per the extended concept of pre-emption to invade Afghanistan. Further the United States did not know the time or place of Al-Qaeda’s next attack and did not know whether there would be ongoing strikes. Therefore, the right of the United States to invoke self defence justified its stance to use force in Afghanistan which was also recognised by majority of nations (Bellamy, A.J. 2006 p.171). It was necessary to overthrow the Taliban regime that protected the Al-Qaeda for which a preventatively and pre-emptively defensive action was needed to prevent another attack. Such an attack could be categorised as an anticipatory self-defence which was highly essential since the intelligence was unable to track future attacks and there was no option of deterrent or protective operations to stop further attacks. Disallowing anticipatory self defence then would mean allowing terrorists or a mandate victimization of the nation. Considering the ready availability of extremely lethal weapons, the costs of victimisation had the probability to rise to unprecedented levels. The rejection of anticipatory self defence methods in the case of terrorism would send messages to potential aggressors and sponsors of terrorist actions that preparatory actions are immune from recourse. Thus anticipatory self defence by the United States under the Operation Enduring Freedom was welcomed by all the nations due to its retributive quality (Bogdandy, A.V. & Wolfrum, R. 2004 p.404). In certain other perspectives, the invasion of Afghanistan was completely useless because it resulted only in the killing of numerous innocent Afghan civilians and paved way for millions of refugees to move into the surrounding countries. The war on Afghanistan is unjustifiable because the real perpetrators perished during the attack (Dabashi, H. 2008 p.236). The invasion of Afghanistan was partially motivated by the truth that it was a soft target without credible military or air force and there was no substantial opposition to the American invasion (Geaves, R. 2004 p.8). The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan resulted in a quick defeat of the Taliban regime but the remnants of the Al-Qaeda militia and the Taliban continues to act at a low level. The war impoverished and wrecked Afghanistan which was already hit by the Society invasion before twenty years. The U.S. invasion besides being unjustifiable was not fruitful in capturing Osama bins Laden or the leader of Al-Qaeda because they had already slipped away (Schaeffer, R.K. 2005 p.283). Though the self defence factor was emphasised to justify the Afghan invasion various sources point out that such anticipatory self defence was unnecessary considering that there were no further attacks in the weeks that followed the 9/11 attacks and before military action against Afghanistan took place (Russett, B., Starr, H. & Kinsella, D. 2009 p.268). The war on terror in Afghanistan is further unjustifiable because the demands and the ultimatum given by then President Bush were not open for discussions or negotiations. The offer of the Taliban government to hand over Osama bin Laden to Pakistan to be tried by an international tribunal that function as per Islamic Sharia law was rejected by Pakistan. The offer of moderate Taliban leaders to hand over Osama bin Laden to Pakistan to avoid impending retaliation was dismissed by President Bush as an insincere offer. The offer of Taliban to try bin Laden in an Islamic court in Afghanistan was also immediately rejected by America as insufficient. These developments against Taliban’s various offers point out that the United States might have decided to invade Afghanistan long before the 9/11 attacks took place. A disclosure by a senior U.S. official to former Pakistani Foreign Secretary in July 2001 reveals that U.S. military action against Afghanistan was planned by the middle of October 2001. This information further adds to the reason why the United States did not want to abandon its decision to invade Afghanistan even when Taliban came up with multiple offers to surrender Bin Laden (Bryant, T. 2007 Background p.2). The urgency shown by the U.S for military action against Afghanistan could be presumed that it acted restrain in the days immediately after the 9/11 attacks to plan and prepare for the invasion. The United States gathered sympathy and sentiments from around the world which surpassed the restrains to be considered as per the United Nations and the international law to identify and adhere to significant limits while dealing with retaliatory attacks. The use of restrain is in view of analysing and acknowledging the destructions a war could bring and to resolve conflict by stressing the importance of dialogue rather than rushing to engage in an unnecessary war. The United States was however innovative in designing a devastating and quick response to the 9/11 attacks. President Bush had no genuine interest to negotiate with Taliban with regard to the demands of the United States and the response of Taliban was obvious that the United States had no interest in peaceful resolution or to adopt non-military actions. The United States was under the presumption that it would not rely on a diplomatic approach because Al-Qaeda cannot be weakened without bringing down the Taliban regime. A survey conducted by International Gallup Association in 37 countries indicated that majority of the nations preferred a legal response over a military attack. The invasion of Afghanistan is unjustifiable because the United States could have considered the potential civilian causalities and the polarising aftermaths of continued bombings. The retributive factor of such bombings suggests international legal issues associated to military attacks (Dolan, C.J. 2005 p.104). The United States should have opted for non-military actions to address the terrorist issue by cutting off funds, improving intelligence and prosecutions, building goodwill and by strengthening international law. Majority of the public who were against military action favoured non military measures that include building goodwill by providing medical assistance and food to people in poor nations and by helping nations to develop their economies (Dolan, C.J. 2005 p.105). Reference Bellamy, A.J. 2006 Just wars: from Cicero to Iraq Cambridge: Polity Bogdandy, A.V. & Wolfrum, R. 2004 Max Planck Yearbook Of United Nations Law Volume 8 Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004 Bryant, T. 2007 Historys Greatest War West Sussex: Global Media, 2007 Dabashi, H. 2008 Islamic liberation theology: resisting the empire Oxon: Routledge Dolan, C.J. 2005 In war we trust: the Bush doctrine and the pursuit of just war Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.  Fox, S. 2004 The Iraq War. Simon Fox Geaves, R. 2004 Islam and the West post 9/11 Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Russett, B., Starr, H. & Kinsella, D. 2009 World Politics: The Menu for Choice Massachusettes: Cengage Learning Schaeffer, R.K. 2005 Understanding globalization: the social consequences of political, economic, and environmental change Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005 Read More