Fighting the War on Terror - Essay Example

Fighting the War on Terror As described by Baylis (2002), terrorism is commonly understood to be those violent acts against civilian targets which are based on nationalistic, political or religious motivations. Terrorism is an unconventional form of war which may be used to weaken or subvert an established government and the effects of a terrorist attack may last long after the attack has taken place. Since this is an unconventional form of war, there may be times when unconventional means have to be used to combat terror. However, it can be shown that even unconventional means for waging a war on terror do not have to go beyond the laws which govern our society. There are two significant reasons for this approach and the first one is that if we go beyond our own laws in the search for terrorists, we would invite international criticism and perhaps even an erosion of support from our allies. The 9/11 attacks were an unjust act of war but as the experiences immediately after the 9/11 attacks show, this American issue NATO into action with the enactment of Article 5 of the NATO treaty (Burke, 2004). Nearly every country in the world wanted to help America and bring the terrorists to justice so much so that the few rouge nations who recognized the Taliban regime quickly became allies to the war against terror. Pakistan was one such country which quickly changed its loyalties from the Taliban to follow western dictates despite the objections which were made by their fundamentalist groups (Burke, 2004). All these things happened simply due to the world seeing that the attack was unjust and as a victim of terrorism, America received all the diplomatic and moral support that it needed to bring the terrorists to justice. Therefore, the American attack on Afghanistan was in line with the constitutional policies of the nation and the attack was supported by the United Nations as well as other international bodies. At that point in time, it was commonly accepted that the culprits of these attacks must be brought to justice. However, later actions taken by America against Iraq and threats against other countries in the Middle East were not seen in a positive light especially when it came to the Europe Union. For instance, the French government was very unhappy about the American decision to enter Iraq and this has weakened the long standing transatlantic alliance (Sterba, 2003). Such policies of not taking our allies into confidence can be quite damaging for our cause and we must continue to gather the support of our allied nations before taking actions against other countries. In fact even the statements made by our leaders can have a negative effect. As reported by Carroll (2004), the first speech President George W. Bush gave after the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, included the word ‘crusade’ to signify the future course of action for America. The effects of this word in the Middle East and the rest of the Muslim world were quite severe since it referred to the brutal wars of the dark ages that took place between the Muslims and the Christians. When this speech was translated into Arabic for the benefit of the Middle East, the closest translation of the word crusade was given as a ‘war of the cross’ (Carroll, J. 2004). This goes to show that in our policy matters, even a single word used carelessly in the war against terror can lead us to losing allies and creating more enemies. Of course the president may not have meant in the sense that it was understood by others, but the images which are created with the word ‘crusade’ do not help in mitigating the fears of the Muslim nations who would be our allies (Li, 2002). Our international policies have to be created in such a way that they bring rouge nations as well as those who fear or hate us into a fold of acceptance. Once American interests and their own interests become the same, it is unlikely that they would fight us on any terms. If we continue to handle the terrorist problem without obtaining cultural understanding or an appreciation of opinions of the other side, we are simply creating more suicide bombers for future generations to deal with (Li, 2002). More importantly, our policies have to be flexible in order to ensure that we do not create permanent enemies of the United States through our own policies that violate the basic human rights as given by the constitution (Leiderman, 2006). At the present moment, it is clear that some of our policies such as the Real ID Act are creating hostility against America and this is not an external hostility but an internal one (Leinwand, 2005). While many Americans continue to see Arabs and Muslims as terrorists, our definition of allies and enemies may not remain true in the long term. This is because international policies are not solely dependent upon one or more nations being seen as evil while others as good. In fact, the image of a country being good or bad is nearly always dependant on the perception and understanding of the masses and it is an irresponsible policy of the media and the government to present biased viewpoints since perceptions can be difficult to change overnight. Coady (2005) says: “There are very bad policies and very bad political leaders, but realism dictates that we recognize the presence of evil wherever and whenever it occurs. It also dictates that we take cognizance of the fact that the monsters of today were our allies of yesterday and may be our allies of tomorrow, and that our own shining virtue often appears in a different light to others (Coady, pg. 16, 2005).” As a part of that shining virtue is the recent government policy which comes with the Real ID Act. The act is supposed to prevent further attacks on American soil by establishing an ID system which would restrict the movement and freedom of terrorists. Jeff Lungern, the spokesperson for the House Judiciary Committee said in support of the bill that, “The 9/11 hijackers used multiple drivers licenses and birth certificates to live openly in the United States while they planned their deadly attacks. Real ID is an effort to prevent that from ever occurring again (Jones, 2006, Pg. 2).” However, as a policy, the Act targets the immigrant population in America unfairly since DMV workers would have to make a judgment about which immigrant’s birth certificate and other information seems genuine and who fails the criteria for getting a driver’s license. Persaud (2005) clearly states that various immigrant groups have become increasingly incensed with the policy developed through the Real ID Act and are lobbying against it. Persaud (2005) quoted Angela Kelly, who is the deputy director of the National Immigration Forum (NIF) as saying that the bill, “Is yet another piece in the patchwork of ineffective laws that fail to address the inability of our immigration system to screen immigrants, protect our country, and provide for the orderly flow of workers and families across our borders (Persaud, 2005, Pg. 14).” Thus as our policies seek to gain more support for the war against terror abroad, they should not alienate the people at home. In conclusion, it becomes easy to say that the policies of the American government in the past as well as the present have been not up to the mark when it comes to gaining allies for the war against terror. At the same time, weak policies which focus on security are also causing us to face problems at home. It can be hoped however, that future policies and acts of the government will bring about a positive change for us both home and abroad. Word Count: 1,462 Works Cited Baylis, J. 2002. Strategy in the Contemporary World. Oxford University Press. Burke, J. 2004. Al Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam. Penguin. Carroll, J. 2004. The Bush Crusade. Nation, 279 (8): 14-22. Coady, C. 2002. The Ethics of Armed Humanitarian Intervention. United States Institute of Peace. Jones, C. 2006. Getting a drivers license to get harder. USA Today, March. 15, sec A. Leiderman, A. 2006. Preserving the Constitution’s Most Important Human Right: Judicial Review of Mixed Questions Under the Real ID Act. Columbia Law Review, 106 (6): 1367-1411. Leinwand, D. 2005. Billboards Arab images spark accusation of racism. USA Today, December. 14, sec. A. Li, X. 2002. Dichotomies and Paradoxes: The West and Islam. Journal of Interdisciplinary International Relations, 16(4): 401-418. Persaud, F. 2005. Immigrant advocacy group slams Republican congressman on Real ID Act. New York Amsterdam News, 96 (6): 14-17. Sterba, J. 2003. Terrorism and International Justice. Oxford University Press. Read More