Background of US War on Terror Policy - Coursework Example

Policy Paper Part Executive Summary The ization of Use of Military Force (AUMF) policy on war on terror saw the US embark on pursuit of terrorist in the Middle East after 9/11. Since the onset of these operations, the US adopted a single-handed approach that severed foreign relationship with the Middle East nations, except Israel. Besides the operation led to gross human rights violations that resulted in illegal detention without trial at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Although the global nobility of this policy was initially driven by global goods, this paper examines the enforcement of this policy with a view of proposing an alternate solution on war against terrorism. Besides, the policy led to making Americans citizens anywhere in the word primary targets of terror groups. In this paper, the significance of the war on terror and impact on the Middle East government is critically analyzed. Additionally, I argue that it would be difficult for America to single-handed win war on terror if it fails to incorporate Middle East government in crucial decisions as well as the United Nations and international bodies. As an ultimate recommendation, this paper argue that incorporating China, Japan and Asian nations would expand the scope of the policy and expedite the success on eradicating terror groups. Part 2: Background of US War on Terror Policy Following the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that killed 241 U.S citizens and 58 French nationals, consequently, President Reagan administration embarked on a policy that would culminate in the term war on terror. In 1984, the Reagan administration coined the term, war on terror as part of administrative strategy to win public support in combating terror (Halabi 89). Although the campaign dubbed America at war with terrorism became evident after the 9/11 American terror attack, historically Americans had a resilient policy on terrorism. In what appeared to be a renewed effort towards ending terrorism, President Bush administration embarked on a serious pursuit of terror groups that were believed to have a hub in Afghanistan and Middle East (Buckley and Robert 132). In the new policy of aggressive war on terror, Bush administration renewed policy to incorporate the following key components. Firstly, in the renewed congressional policy, American soldiers would identify, locate and destroy terror groups alongside its leadership and strictures in the Middle East. Secondly, America would deny sponsorship, support and any form of assistance to governments perceived to be tolerant to terror and extremist groups. Perhaps, this was the most controversial element of the policy because it had deleterious effects on government perceived to support terror groups. As a result the US embarked on ousting Iraq President Saddam Hussein and patronizing Afghanistan through leadership transition. Some analysts have identified these aggressive wars as a wider global strategy that is driven by US intentions to patronize global politics (Buckley and Robert 132) There is no doubt that Americans bore the greatest brunt of the o impact of terrorism. In 1998, there were serious terror attacks at the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania besides; there has been a number of thwarted terror attempts, including the 2000 millennium attack plot in the Los Angeles International airport. Following these historical targets of terrorism, the policy was geared towards stamping authority in Islam-states. As witnessed by Bush sentiments after 9/11, he described Middle as home of terror groups (Looney 122). Besides, he observed that American pursuit for terrorism was the universal goal towards securing nations from excruciating effects of these groups. In order to secure the globe from being ruled by terror, Bush administration established a policy called Authorization for Use of Military Force against Terrorists (AUMF) on September 14, 2001 (Buckley and Robert 134). Under this policy, the US troop that were heading to the Afghanistan in pursuit of terrorist were given powers to use unrestricted force in bringing down terror groups. This policy was constituted within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973. From the onset of the AUMF was driven by pursing terrorism t their “door steps” as termed by President Bush (Buckley ad Robert 138). This involved military action regardless of international sovereignty implication. Some critics argue that the renewed policy on war on terror lead to gross abuse of international foreign policy stipulation and caused humanitarian crises. However, the US administration maintained that it was purposely driven by the need to end terrorism havens and sanctuaries and enable weak states to establish a terror-free government. Besides, the background of the policy was to defend the US citizens both, in the US and abroad. In addition, there is a need to establish partnership with the international community and secure the globe from heinous acts of terrorism. In this policy on the war on terror, the US, Middle East governments, human right groups and international organization are crucial stakeholders (Ahmed 346). Part 3: Framing War on Terror Policy The issue of war on terror is important because of three critical reasons. Firstly, the pursuit of terror groups in the Middle East has led to growing concern on the US respect of the sovereignty of other nations and the conventional principle of non-interference (Ahmed 350). There is no doubt that the US entry into Iraq and Afghanistan left the countries with devastating war and political instability. Today, the newly formed government has received a rejection from its people because it has been perceived to championed American ideologies (Halabi 92). Although the aim of intrusion was to end state-sponsored terror groups, it remains largely unknown whether Saddam Hussein supported any terror activity. Secondly, the US military operations in the Middle East have led to concerns of abuse of human rights. There have been reported cases of torture of suspected terrorist, rape and purposeful separation of families and beloved ones. Today, the Guantanamo Bay detention facility is a living testimony of gross violation of human rights. Many families still report missing members of families, some are held in harrowing inhuman conditions at this facility while the US constitution prohibits prolonged detention without trial. This central issue continues to be raised by numerous human right groups (Buckley 139). Moreover, some scholars argue that the policy has been interlaced within the wider global politics and superpower mighty shows. The US interest of controlling valuable resources such as Middle East oil, nuclear weapon technology and dominating in global military has been blamed for expeditious pursuit for terrorism. Some critics find the pursuit of terrorism as a blanket excuse that hides the inner agenda of the war. Besides, the perception that American focus on the east is driven by replacing indigenous leadership and replacing Islam-controlled states with democratic ideals has been a major issue raised by many critics. With the current approach, America policy on the war on terror would not see the light because of a number of reasons. Firstly, the approach has created a notion of war against Muslims and their system of leadership. When Muslim nations feel threaten of their unique identity and existence of perceived threat against their indigenous leadership, American war on terror will not receive intergovernmental support. In reality, war on terror rests on individual effort of governments to stamp terror groups within its borders. The US alone cannot achieve meaningful success if it fails to incorporate existing governments in these areas perceived to harbor terrorist groups. Besides, after Iraq war and subsequent ousting of Saddam Hussein, the reputation of the US within the Middle East context has been severed (Buckley and Robert 140). Today, the relationship between US and Middle East nations except Israel is frosty and thus any effort by the US to pursue a global matter irrespective of how important and urgent it may seem has been received with a mixed reactions. Additionally, the US political and socioeconomic organizations differ strangely with Muslim states. It is viewed as a westernized nation with capitalism and liberal democracies, ideologies that have no place within the Muslim context. Hence, US in my view have failed to integrate nations perceived to be harboring zones of terrorists in efforts to end terrorism. Part 4: Alternative Approach to War on Terror One of the deleterious approaches on war on terror was the use of “our citizens,” this phrase isolated the fact that the war on terror is a global responsibility rather than an American affair. However, the US immediately embarked efforts to rebrand the policy as the global war on terror (Satloff 217). Despite the continued efforts, the harm has already been done. We now know that the American government is at war with terror groups such as Al Qaeda, Taliban and ISIS. In addition, American government is now turning to the United Nations, European Union, and NATO for mitigation of the effects created by terrorism across the globe (Halabi 90). There is no doubt that championing such ideals is within the moral good, but the approach adopted from the start has put Americans as open targets for terrorism across the globe. In order to mitigate war on terror, the US government should embark on the policy review. Three integral steps should be taken to ensure war on terror is viewed beyond the Americans. Firstly, the US should expedite cases of war suspects held in Guantanamo Bay and ensure justice is done to the victims. It will continue to harm the goodwill of securing globe while gross violation of human rights is ongoing in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility (Ahmed 370). In addition Ahmed (371) observes that the policy should focus on collaborative approach rather than a single-handed approach that has characterized the US and British operations in US. Today, Americans are identified as proponents of war on terror because of their initial pursuit that paid no attention to existing international law jurisdictions. Reframing war on terror to focus on Security Council duty would have buffering effects against putting risk to the American population as key targets of terrorism. Throughout history, the Middle East has been identified as a hot spot of terror groups. In order to unmask this burden the S should embark on recruiting the native surveillance to rely on them for important information. Keeping troops indefinitely in the Middle East would have short-term stability. Part 5: Conclusion and Recommendation One of the pervasive American problems was the creation of national narcissism mindset that was well choreographed by intentions to adopt military operations in the Middle East following September 11. Through enforcement of AUMF policy of September 2001, the US embarked on military operations that focused on eliminating terror groups and aiding establishment of anti-terror groups in the Middle East. Consequently, the victims of 9/11 saw this as ultimate path to justice (Halabi 94). However, the policy mutated over time into a blind reckless mission that resulted in gross human right violation, operations and counter retaliatory terror activity and abuse of non-interference policy. In order to facilitate smooth enforcement of AUMF 2001 policy, the American government should undertake three deliberate measures. Firstly, there should be serious rebranding of the war on terror policy to shift the burden from America to the global platform. This will reduce the notion created by Middle East dwellers of ideology and power pursuit rather than creating a world free of terror objective. Today, policy on war on terror remain fragile, it is founded on a military approach as a solution to curbing terror. Americans have solely brand itself as an agent of anti-terror campaign. A better approach would be fostering mutual relationship with the Middle East and pursue terrorist within the contexts of global international organizations such as United Nations. In addition, it should utilize strategic friendship with China, Japan and Asian countries, so as to create a global shared policy rather than an adventurous attempt. Besides, war on terror will be won through individual government putting strong international security across its borders. Works Cited Ahmed, Nafeez M. Behind the War on Terror: Western Secret Strategy and the Struggle for Iraq. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers, 2003. 345-71. Print. Buckley, Mary, and Robert Singh. The Bush Doctrine and the War on Terrorism: Global Responses, Global Consequences. London: Routledge, 2006. 132-41. Print. Halabi, Yakub. Us Foreign Policy in the Middle East: From Crises to Change. Farnham: Ashgate, 2009. 89-94. Print. Looney, R. "US Middle East Economic Policy: The Use of Free Trade Areas in the War on Terrorism." Mediterranean Quarterly (2005): 122-34. Print. Satloff, Robert B. The Battle of Ideas in the War on Terror: Essays on U.s. Public Diplomacy in the Middle East. Washington: Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2004. 213-18. Print. Read More