The War on Terrorism - Essay Example

The Author’s Name] [The Professor’s Name] [The Course Title] [Date] War on Terror Introduction Terrorism has always been present on the global scene. Individuals, groups and governments have been trying to face and curb it violently or non-violently. This essay would throw light on the success of counterterrorism campaigns by America and her Allies despite multi-faceted criticism made from various quarters in the world. This essay would forward the opinion that struggle against crushing terrorism is going to embrace success despite of lot of criticism. After the devastating attack on 9/11, the United States was left with choice but to attempt to stop the Middle Eastern terrorists. National honor and pride demanded swift retaliation. As the common saying goes, “Offense is the best defense.” According to the White House website, “if we give up the fight in the streets of Baghdad, we will face the terrorists in the streets of our cities.” The terrorists, too busy trying to ward off the American soldiers, are now unable to organize another act of terrorism like 9/11 as easily as before. Of immense concern are the threats posted by terrorists in rogue countries such as Iraq (Davidson, 110-12). Iraq’s deadly biological agents originated from American companies when the United States was supporting Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War. The terrorist nation has been constantly attempting to obtain botulinum toxin and appears to have succeeded; in 1991, the United Nations were unable to account for three times the amount of botulinum needed to kill the entire current human population by inhalation. To this day, the United Nations have not found the missing toxin, which is so dangerous that one gram of the substance is able to kill one million people. Discussion Obviously, this essay would reveal that the means of destruction are readily available. But will the Middle Eastern terrorists strike America? As if 9/11 wasn’t proof enough, Iran has proven itself to be the most active sponsor of terror by training and arming radical groups in the Middle Eastern area (Balkin 18). In an act of violence, the world’s best terrorists gathered in Teheran in May 2001 to declare a holy war against the U.S., which they dubbed the “Second Israel.” If the terrorist nations want to harm America, the United States has no choice but to eliminate the threat. The threat lies in the states that sponsor terrorism and not just individuals, for simply murdering Osama bin Laden will only spur a new army of militants to replace the dead. America must strike at the source for the final solution, to ensure that the biggest danger to American citizens is removed forever. But homeland security is not the only issue. In the Middle East, “Palestine leaders block and undermine democratic reform, feed hatred, and encourage violence” (Balkin 47) Unwilling to lose their immoral dictatorship over their helpless Middle Eastern civilians, the leaders brainwash the civilians into hating America. In Palestine, the only path to independence, dignity, and progress is democracy. Some Americans feel that the civilians of the Middle East should be left alone to live a life of pain and suffering, but the U.S. government should not listen to such weak, uneducated chatter. Modernization is not westernization, and it is a long and arduous project that takes years to get moving. Besides, who would argue that the treatment of women as second-rate citizens, the absence of religious freedom, and the application of arbitrary justice is better than equal rights for all, freedom of speech, press, and religion, and a developed justice system (Messerli, 39-44) America, like a stern parent, should foster the children of the Middle East no matter what defiant cries are made. All this discussion transpires that terrorism is fundamentally a political act. Terrorists act to advance a cause they mean to create tyranny, either directly or indirectly, so that the political order that they prefer can take the place of the current one. Terrorists can be either rebel seeking to overthrow a state or states seeking to overthrow the international order or states seeking to maintain privilege for rulers and stifle dissent among the people. In every case the motivation for terrorism is explicitly without an exception, political. Therefore, the stance of this essay is this that the expansion of democracy and minimization of terrorism are actually the responsibilities of the United States. Like how the Founding Fathers of America fought for their right to freedom, now America has to help the nations of the Middle East enjoy the same privilege of independence. It also has control of the most powerful military in the world; its defense budget in 2005 was greater than the next fourteen national military budgets combined. As the famous saying goes, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Every political action has a longstanding psychological message that affects the nation’s citizens. What message is the United States sending to the American public if the government quits the campaign in the Middle East? Are they sending the message that if the going gets tough, one should quit? Instead of looking at hardships as obstacles, view them as opportunities. The campaign in Iraq is not only a practical way to flex the ideological biceps of America, but it is also a perfect opportunity to set a good example for civilians across the nation. Although some may criticize this viewpoint as overly emotional with little to no facts, it is futile to try to avoid one’s natural feelings. In the United States democratic republic, citizens elect representatives to represent them in government issues too complex for the average citizen to comprehend. So far, the citizens have already begun withdrawing their faith in George W. Bush as his approval rating declines. This downward trend of patience can only be cured with a successful outcome in Iraq. Accustomed to instant gratification, Americans nowadays generally need to mature. In the scenario of global terrorism, the United States and the Middle East’s fates are intertwined. It is agreed that terrorism is carried out by nongovernmental agents. No government is behind it. It is very secretive. Terrorists hide within societies making it extremely difficult to find and remove them. It is done with intent. Terrorism is rooted in the culture of fear and is intended to influence a particular audience. The men and women committing these crimes believe that they are just because they are fighting for what they consider to be a “greater good.” They differ from normal criminals because they believe that they are right. They also suffer from “true believer syndrome,” someone who will do anything for what they believe in. Terrorists believe that they will eventually win. Although most Muslims oppose terrorism, the oppression of women, and religious intolerance, these are the most common views of the Muslim faith to the people of the West. These popular misconceptions about Islam which have been played up by the government, pop culture, and the media have made it hard to chance the U.S. foreign policy regarding political Islam. (Steinberg, 171-80) According to the National Intelligence Council, there will be very large gains in religious “activists” involving many youth. Experts believe that there will be “elevated numbers of radical advocates, including Muslim extremists.” The youth bulges are expected to take place in most West African and Middle Eastern counties until 2005-2010. The effects could be detrimental and the problems associated with them will last long after. The Middle East has an ever increasing number of radical Islamists which stems from the political and economic alienation of many young Muslims. Governmental strains and the failure of many predominantly Muslim states to globalize have stirred up feelings of alienation among the country’s youth. These collective feelings of alienation and estrangement fuel the fire of radical Islam and most likely will not dissipate until the Muslim world becomes more integrated into the world economy. (Steinberg, 171-80) There is a difference between a positive outcome and an outcome that is best for the United States. “Defeating terrorism requires a long-term strategy and a break with old patterns. The United States can no longer rely simply on deterrence to keep the terrorists at bay or defensive measures to thwart them at the last moment. (Stewart, 255-60) President Bush has taken the offense on the fight on terrorism. This is the best way to combat or at least prevent radical Islamists from becoming an unstoppable force. Their economies lag behind the rest of the world and the youth feel alienated because of the lack of globalization. Democracy allows for empowerment while the terrorist ideology focuses on enslavement. The tactics used by terrorists will never be justified. Obviously, the most effective weapon in the war on terrorism is to take the highest measures possible to lessen the likelihood that it happens on U.S. soil and or avoid American citizens from being targets. It also means changing some foreign policies in order to stop terrorists from holding the United States responsible for their suffering. This could mean giving them what they want and thus pacifying their behavior. A policy change may be necessary. Although the United States fully supports Israel, many of the terrorist attacks that have occurred are from Palestinian and Lebanese families who have been directly harmed by the Israeli government. The people feel that American actions are not justified and see the country as being hypocritical. Another policy shift could be away from unilateral action. The United States isolated itself from its allies that it needs in this fight against terrorism. An effective short term strategy that would be helpful involves intelligence and interdiction, which is part of a transnational effort. The United States could seek additional help from the United Nations in order to at least appear to be a more responsible member of the international community. The best outcome for the United States is to avoid another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Helping countries in the Middle East accept democracy and globalization are also important in suppressing terrorism and helping to build the economies of these nation-states. The National Security Strategy of the United States 2006Although my idea of foreign policy and the one set forth by President Bush in the National Security Strategy of the United States in 2006 have many similarities, there are also many differences. It is doubtful that America will lose support of Israel; it has backed the country for years and fully supports it. The President also set forth a more detailed plan on how to deal with the rise of radical Islamists. President Bush states in his policy that he is going to try to combat terrorism by empowering the very people the terrorists exploit: the faithful followers of Islam. He is willing to continually support their political reforms and empower peaceful Muslims to practice and interpret their faith. Conclusion The problem the United States faces currently with terrorism is geography. The United States isn’t immune to a terrorist attack. The United States acquired a solid lesson on September 11th, 2001 when we were attacked from within. Our global location cannot protect us from internal invasion. Military strength is a definite asset. Our military is advanced and we are ready and able to fight terrorism with force. Some may say that natural resources are one of the reasons why we intercede in the Middle East. Our nation relies heavily on oil from that part of the world and would definitely be a natural resource that the American people cannot survive without. This suggests that another power element that is in America’s favor and allows us to adequately fight the war on terror is our economic capacity. American has a strong economy and the money to finance an advanced army and fund a war. In addition the leadership role which is currently being filled by President Bush has shown a strong willingness to use force and has made appropriate policies for the current circumstances. (Bush, 19-22) The policies made have been carried out with reasonable effectiveness. Also, the decision to react was made within a reasonable amount of time. Finally, American citizens were enraged after 9/11. The national morale after 9/11 was said to have never been higher. Soldiers are still to this day fighting bravely for their country. (Richelson, 201-206) The United States has put much pressure on them but their positions are being readily filled and there are still many at large. The US has either captured or killed the top 55 Iraqi leaders. To win this war on terror the United States military needs to be capturing, killing, or deterring and dissuading more terrorist’s everyday than the madrasses and the radical clerics are recruiting, training, and deploying against us. (Fandy, 148) Working closely with such groups as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the United Nations (UN), and the European Union (EU) have proven both invaluable and extremely frustrating for policy-makers. While the United States led "War against Terror" has been difficult, the support of the international community in terms of intelligence as well as resources has proven invaluable. (Aubrey, 159-65) After everything that has happened over the years. Its time one must stay out of other countries business unless they ask for our help. When we just jump right in to save the day, many people get angry that we are trying to over power them and it leads to further destruction. If we didn't try to be the hero all the time maybe things might have been different. Basically whether you support the government or not they are going to do what they feel is best. So people should really think about what they are going to say before they say it. Bush ha enough to worry about right now and it would be nice to have the US people on his side. And now Barack Hussain Obama is ready to fight against this obnoxious evil of terrorism to save his country and to save our world. Over the recent years the violence and evil has gotten worst. Everybody is worried about the high crimes rates across the country. Gangs are killing each other and innocent people everyday. The point here is that the president asked congress for thirty billion dollars, in which over ten was to help find the terrorist. The concerned quarters feeling is this type of action could help cities all over the country fight against domestic terrorism also. Money could be used to hirer more police officers and build up the communities across our nation. After we deal with the foreign terrorism maybe then we can focus on the domestic. If Allied countries stay together as an Alliance who clearly has a love for its own, we can go so far, end racism, the increasing crime rate, poverty and most of all the crime against all humanity. Works Cited Aubrey, Steven M., “Combatting Al-Quaeda and the Jihadist Ideology, - an in-Progress Review of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Strategy.” 2005. Balkin, Karen F., ed. The War on Terrorism: Opposing Viewpoints. Detroit: Thomson Gale Greenhaven Press, 2005. 18&47 Bush, George W., “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America.” 2006 Davidson, Margaret. “Dr. Ira Baldwin: Biological Weapons Pioneer.” History Net 25 September 2004. 110-12 Fandy, Mamoun., “Islamists and U.S. Policy.” Volume I, Number 21, December 1996. Messerli, Joe. Ed. Balanced Politics. Around Town Northeast Wisconsin Association. 23 January 2007. 39-44 Richelson, Jeffrey., Evans, Michael L., “National Security Archive Electronic Briefing.” Book No. 55, Volume I, Terrorism and U.S. Policy. 2001 Steinberg, James B., Daalder, Ivo H, and Lindsay, James M. “Brookings Scholars Evaluate and Analyze the President’s National Security Strategy Paper.” Stewart, Gail B. The War on Terrorism: The War At Home. San Diego: Thomson Gale Lucent Books, 2004. Read More