A Primer in the Politics of the War on Terror - Essay Example

A PRIMER IN THE POLITICS OF THE WAR ON TERRORISM The U.S. led 'War on Terrorism,' (WOT) perhaps the most unpopular war in the history of theworld, has brought American democratic institutions and public agencies under critical public scrutiny. As the threat of terrorism continues to captivate the United States and the world, it becomes imperative to analyze and understand the politics of the 'War on Terror', declared hastily in the wake of horrific 9/11 attacks, and later shifting paradigms to meet the U.S interests in Arab world. The paper presents a primer-- a critical examination of the politics of the WOT and attempts to analyze the role of the U.S government, democratic institutions and other agencies including those of the President and the Congress, the Court, bureaucracies, interest groups, elections, the media and public opinion, in influencing the course of WOT to its inevitable outcome. Introduction The U.S. led 'War on Terrorism' is directed to its inevitable end, rather 'endlessness', given the shifting paradigms of the war and the impact of war actions and consequences on global terrorist networks. The war, which began on a hysterical note at the 9/11 U.S. attacks by the al Qaeda was fought relentlessly by the U.S - initially on Afghanistan, alleged to be the homeland of al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, the master brain behind the terrorist attacks, and then on Iraq, for their 'suspected' links with the al Qaeda, and the potential threats from Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). No sooner did the 'War on Terrorism' became 'War on Iraq,' aimed at ousting Saddam Hussein and the establishment of democracy in Iraq, strategically naming the war 'Operation Iraqi Freedom,' as America advanced its strategic and political interests in the Arab world. According to a 2004 report released by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, the U.S. actions in Iraq since 2003 March has weakened the global counter-terrorism coalition, which seemed formidable in 2001; however, "war on terrorism" was effective in revitalizing and motivating the al Qaeda network, [Strategic Survey 2003/04, 2004] As the war continues to be waged extending geographical territories, the 'enemy' seems all the more remote and ever-more prevailing, as new cohorts of terrorists emerge to be potential threat to the U.S. and its allies in the Western world. The human, economic, social costs and consequences of America's 'War on Terrorism' have been appalling and still continue to mount. The dismal and absolutely avoidable war consequences aggravates the need for a critical review of the politics behind Bush Administration's so-called 'War on Terrorism' - the legality, the real intentions, the propaganda, the schemes, and the roles and responsibilities of all those involved and concerned - resulting in one of the most demoralizing episode in the history of humanity, no less than Hitler's 'Holocaust.' Role of President and the Congress In the wake of the shocking September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001, President Bush dubbed the terrorist attack as acts of war, and proclaimed a 'global war on terrorism' (GWOT). The President's hastiness in declaring war on an 'enemy' not so well defined, and his declaration that al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters were unlawful "enemy combatants," rather than criminals, has been subject to critical analysis. [Feldman, 2002] However his decision to commit troops to combat without seeking a congressional declaration of war, [Ramsay, 2002] and expansion of his Presidential authority facilitating non-constitutional actions including the holding of prisoners without judicial review and approving torturous interrogation techniques [Seelye, 2001, Fisher, 2001] have been unilateral and critically grave violations of the U.S Constitution. The Congress also played a crucial role- despite protests, objections and voices of dissent from all quarters including the United Nations, the Congress categorically supported President's non-constitutional actions, by issuing a Joint Resolution authorizing the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons," giving him absolute freedom to determine the terrorist elements that "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks.." and to use military force "in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States" [Joint Resolution, 2001] The Congress also approved a USD 40 billion emergency spending bill towards recovering from terrorist attacks. Though the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan may not have been politically and constitutionally correct, it could still be justified as an act of self-defense, for its obvious connection with the al-Qaeda. However a critical examination of the President Bush's diversion of WOT to Iraq and Saddam Hussein, continually charging "dubious allegations" of the presence of WMD and "reconstituted nuclear weapons," [Walter and Dana, 2003], given the reality that U.S. intelligence agencies had no specific information on the "banned arms" [Walter, 2003] present hints about a hidden agenda in Bush Administration's war plans- an obvious political scheme with extended objectives than terrorism per se. [Ikenberry, 2002] The war consequences and outcomes including Bush Administration's failure to link Iraq with al-Qaeda, inability to locate Iraq's WMD, and more importantly the deposing of Saddam Hussein, America's "Old Enemy," and the strategic control of World's largest oil reserves, verify the political schemes and the real intentions behind the President's declaration of GWOT. The review of American war strategies suggests the U.S. President's "double standards and dubious morality and the duplicity of [the] Fight Against Terror," [Fisk, 2003] which explains the weakening of global counter-terrorism coalition and the failure of WOT in meeting the strategic objectives of ending global terrorism. Role of the Court In the U.S. democratic system, it is the responsibility of the Congress and the Court to ensure that the President acts within the constitutional bounds and in accordance with democratic values. While the U.S. Congress grossly failed to ensure this in the Presidential actions in executing WOT, the U.S. Court and legal system too has been ineffective in checking President's unconstitutional actions, 'authorized' by the Military Order of November 13, 2001. [Military Order, 2001] While the judiciary and many legal experts have cautioned the transfer of power from Congress to the President, the Supreme Court could not adequately check the flow of power, limited by the Joint Resolution and Military Order. [Seelye, 2001; Bickers 2003] The Supreme Court has been reluctant to interfere with the President's war powers and actions - the Court rulings on WOT affirmed the need for extraordinary deference to the executive branch on national security, particularly during wartime. Most significantly the Court upheld the authority of the Commander-in-Chief to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, as implied in the cases of Hamdi and Padilla. ["Terror And The Court", 2005] However, the Supreme Court's decision in Rasul v. Bush, which concluded that the federal courts had some role in reviewing the procedures used by the United States to classify terrorism detainees as "combatants," [Yin, 2005] has been a significant step in the "War on Terrorism," facilitating a fair treatment of the terrorism detainees. Still, for the most part "the Court stepped away from the chaos of making judges the arbiters of American security." ["Terror And The Court", 2005] Role of the Bureaucracy The role of bureaucracy in WOT, as the bureaucratic system of the country. has been complex and evolving. The U.S Security Bureaucracy including the State Departments, intelligence and the military, as usual in times of war, responded and acted diligently in accordance with the President's plans. President Bush's influence in the national security bureaucracy has been all pervading - the military understood the significance of fighting new wars in new ways, intelligence services rather than providing "intelligence services" made or were compelled to make 'second-guess [on] their familiar assumptions,' and the State Departments and public diplomacy spoke strongly in favor of America in all public forums. [Frum and Perle, 2004] The actions of Justice department became of a saga a governmental abuse of terror suspects. However the new face of the bureaucracy soon relapsed into the self-interested partisan politics, as the war extended, shifting focus from terrorism; and the political schemes of President became difficult to be achieved. The shift in bureaucratic attitude was made good by major reorganization of the federal bureaucracy. [Allen, 2002] A Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security was formed placing nearly 170,000 federal employees under the direct control of the President and the Congress. [Tenpas and Hess, 2002] The Director of the Office of Homeland Security was authorized to review of government counter-terrorism programs and to promote interagency cooperation, as the Bush administration gained the bureaucratic backing for advancing the WOT and realizing the hidden political agenda. Role of Interest Groups Many interest groups - political, religious, corporate et al - have played their respective roles in leading the WOT through its oblique course. The most prominent of these is the oil interests; observers and analysts have commented the incestuous links between oil interests and Bush's war policies and strategies in Iraq. [Braun, 2004] The statement by the President of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation, Larry Goldstein, to Wall Street Journal, suggests the overriding influence of oil interests on President Bush's GWOT, "If we go to war, it's not about oil. But the day the war ends, it has everything to do with oil." [Cited Herrick, 2003] The Journal article also reports that "officials from the White House, State Department and Department of Defense have been meeting informally with executives from Halliburton, Slumberger, ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips to plan the post-war oil bonanza." [Herrick, 2003] The political significance of oil interests becomes more evident with the comprehension that 'ExxonMobil--the second biggest corporation on the globe-is a heavy financial backer of Bush', and other Washington think tanks that pushed for the Iraq war. [Braun, 2004] Role of the Elections The 2004 Presidential elections amidst President's Bush distorted WOT was expected to turn the course of war; "Take Back America" became the public slogan in the election campaign. Initially the democrats succeeded in winning the public against Bush Administration's undemocratic and unruly actions in Iraq initiated in the name of "War on Terrorism." However the administration's propaganda that a major new terrorist attack within the United States could disrupt the elections, even resulting in military intervention on the streets of America and suspension of the Constitution, [Davis and Silver, 2004] ostensibly reversed the election trends, particularly among the women voters. [Eichenberg, 2004] A considerable public was apparently convinced that only a continued and tough fight against terrorism, which only President Bush was capable of, could protect the nation from further terrorist attacks. [Davis and Silver, 2004] Consequently, albeit on a low and controversial margin, George Bush was reelected the President of United States as his administration continued the political plans behind WOT, though less arrogantly, considering the waning of global counter-terrorism coalition and mixed public opinion. Role of the Media The role of the media in shaping the WOT and its consequences of has been subject to much criticism by unbiased policy analysts and academia. The U.S. media, despite its "free press" status has acted as a political instrument of the Bush administration, in propagating views and opinions favoring the U.S. actions, 'manufacturing consent' from within the U.S. and outside. [Herman and Chomsky, 2002] The Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland in its study evaluated how 11 leading U.S. and United Kingdom newspapers, newsmagazines and public-radio programs covered WMD - the study comments that most of the journalists accepted or failed to challenge Bush administration's formulation of the WOT as a campaign against WMD, and reported the incumbent administration's perspective on WMD, stenographically, giving too little critical examination of the way officials framed the events, issues, threats, and policy options.[ Moeller, 2004] Rather than serving the governed in a democracy, the U.S. media effectively served the governors, as the WOT shifted course to meet political ends of Bush administration. Role of Public Opinion Public opinion is considered the fulcrum of governmental action in democratic systems. However apart from the constitutional right to vote a government to power, public opinion only influences governmental actions conditionally. [Brandice and Shotts, 2004] Moreover, public opinions and minds are won by astute political propaganda; the 'War on Terrorism' is a classic case where public opinion has been forged to advantage by the administration and a politically subservient media. [Herman and Chomsky, 2002] At times when public opinion was reversed as in the 2004 elections, renewed propaganda about the possibility of terrorist attack restored the public in favor, as the War continues relentlessly. Conclusion A critical examination of the politics of the 'War on Terrorism' reveals major flaws in the U.S. Democratic institutions. The violation of the Constitution by the President and the Congressional approval, mutely supported by the judiciary, present major democratic issues, which needed debates and counter-actions, at the national level. However, Bush administration succeeded in influencing the public opinion, and also in influentially transforming the bureaucratic set up to their advantage, using the politically acquiescent media. The 2004 election, which was expected to turn the course of War, also turned a political fiasco, as the administration and media succeeded in their new terrorism propaganda. In the last analysis, U.S.'s 'War on Terrorism' presents as a cloak for advancing America's strategic and political interests in the Arab world, the most significant being the control of its vast oil reserves. References 1. Allen, M. (2002) "Bush Campaigns for Creating Homeland Security Department," Washington Post, June 25: A3. 2. Bickers, J. M. (2003). "Military Commissions are Constitutionally Sound: A Response to Professors Katyal and Tribe." Texas Tech Law Review 34: 899-932. 3. Brandice, C.W. & Shotts, K.W (2004) "The Conditional Nature of Presidential Responsiveness To Public Opinion." American Journal of Political Science, (October) 48(4): 690-706. 4. Braun, W. (2004) "Read between the pipelines: gas-guzzling linked to Iraq occupation" (May Issue) Briarpatch Magazine, Canada 5. Davis, D. W. & Silver, B. D. (2004) "The Threat of Terrorism, Presidential Approval, and the 2004 Election," Michigan State University: Department of Political Science, Michigan 6. Eichenberg, R. C. (2004) "Gender, National Security, and the Election of 2004" (September 30) Working Paper, Tufts University: Department of political science, Massachusetts 7. Feldman, N. (2002) "Choices of Law, Choices of War," Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, (Spring) 25: 468. 8. Fisher, L. (2001) Bush Can't Rely On FDR Precedent, Los Angeles Times, December 2: M3 9. Fisk, R. (2003) "The Double Standards, Dubious Morality and Duplicity of this Fight Against Terror." Special Report. (March) Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. 10. Frum, D. & Perle R. (2004) "An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror" New York: Ballantine Books 11. Herman, E. S & Chomsky, N. (2002) "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media" New York: Pantheon Books 12. Herrick, T. (2003) "US Oil Wants to Work in Iraq," Wall Street Journal, January 16: p.11 13. Ikenberry, G. J. (2002) "America's Imperial Ambition," Foreign Affairs, (September-October) 81(5) p. 44. 14. "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Those Responsible for the Recent Attacks Against the United States," (2001) Pub. L. No. 107-40 115 Stat. Sec 2. 224 15. "Military Order of November 13, 2001: Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism," (2001) 66 Fed. Register: 57,833 16. Moeller, S.D. (2004) "Media Coverage of Weapons Of Mass Destruction" (March) Center for International and Security Studies, University of Maryland 17. Pincus, W. (2003) "Analysis: U.S. Lacks Specifics on Banned Arms," Washington Post, March 16: A17 18. Ramsey, M.D. (2002) "Textualism and War Powers." University of Chicago Law Review. 69 (4): 1543-1638 19. Seelye, K. Q. (2001) "In Letter, 300 Law Professors Oppose Tribunals Plan" New York Times, December 8: A1 20. "Strategic Survey 2003/04: An Evaluation and Forecast of World Affairs" (2004) International Institute for Strategic Studies, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 21. Tenpas, K. D. and Hess, S. (2002) "The Bush White House: First Appraisals," Presidential Studies Quarterly 32: 581. 22. "Terror And The Court" (2004) Editorial: Wall Street Journal, June 29: 14 23. Walter, P. & Dana M. (2003) "Bush Clings To Dubious Allegations About Iraq." Washington Post, March 18: A13 24. Yin, T. (2005) "The Future Role of Article III Courts in the War on Terrorism," William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 13: 1035-1101 Read More