Civilian Support for the United States Government in the War on Terrorism - Essay Example

s the assignment is due: 20 Nov. 2008 The Support of Citizens to the U.S. Government in the War onTerrorism. Terrorism as a means of waging war against the state is an old concept and has been there since the 19th Century. In the present day world terrorism has gained currency across the globe because of its effectiveness in bringing insecurity right to the doorsteps of the average citizen and creating immense fear and disgust in their minds. Public opinion in victim countries favoring strong action against terrorism is usually overwhelming, particularly in the initial phases. The outcry hinges primarily on the abhorring collateral damage that is caused by modern day terrorists to life and property of innocent civilians. Populations in affected countries thus need little persuasion to back governments that promise to fight the malaise by wars on terrorism. The very basis for the choice to go to war by citizens of a country, however, begs scrutiny. Chris Hedges in his book “War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning” examines how a process gets unleashed by which governments create the myth that waging war was the way to solve the problem, and the people embrace it. We begin to view ourselves as the embodiment of absolute goodness says Hedges, and embracing war against opponents who are no longer believed to be human “gives us purpose, meaning, a reason for living” [pg. 3]. As one who has experienced it himself he confesses, “The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug, one I ingested for many years” [pg. 3]. Despite the experiences each war throws up people do not seem to learn their lessons either. Hedges observes that, after every war, “some struggle to tell us how the ego and vanity of commanders leads to the waste of lives and needless death, how they too became tainted, but the witnesses are soon ignored” [pg. 115]. The United States has portrayed itself as an ‘advocate’ of world peace for long, more so after Vietnam, and condemns the practice of violence that kills and maims innocent civilians. With terrorism intensifying during the last three decades and its negative effects being felt the world over America not only took on the responsibility of ending the threat but also presented itself as the defender of freedom and righteousness. “We go forward," President Bush assures us, "to defend freedom and all that is good and just in the world” (Hedges, 4). With this attitude the U.S. Government began to make its people believe that the fight was against the ‘evil forces’ of the world represented by terrorists and those who supported them. Consequently actions in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998 taken by the government against terrorists easily found favor with most citizens. The watershed however was September 11, 2001, when terrorism struck the very heart of the United States. The horror perpetuated by ‘evil forces’ that visited the homeland saw an upsurge of anger among the people. This turn of events provided the U.S. Government with a unique opportunity to channel such hatred to serve its interests and launch a ‘War on Terrorism’ in real earnest. The war included military actions against countries which ostensibly provided safe heavens for terrorists so as to preempt the latter from harming U.S. interests at home and abroad. Along with this the U.S. also intended that the people of these countries are liberated from the tyranny of the ‘evil forces.’ Projecting terrorists as barbaric individuals who would go to any extremes to achieve their dubious aims, the U.S. Government stressed that it was its duty to wage war not only for the safety and security of Americans but for people all over the world. Public support for the cause was unprecedented and almost total. “The patriotic buntings and American flags that proliferated in the wake of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were our support for the war mounted against the "axis of evil.” (Hedges, 4). Americans took pride in the fact that they belonged to a nation which ensured that its own citizens as well as the ‘world citizens’ were safe and secure. The phenomenon that unfolded was a classic case of people being inclined to wage war despite its horrors as they became prey to the myth created by the government about “us” who were ‘good’ fighting the other who was ‘evil’. “The enduring attraction of war is this: Even with its destruction and carnage it can give us what we long for in life. It can give us purpose, meaning, a reason for living.” (Hedges, 3). At the international level the US obtained the support of nations that were either victims themselves, or abhorred the use of indiscriminate violence to create fear, thus paving the way to form the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ to fight the war. But, even as the resolve to act against terrorism rapidly gained acceptance, the options that the coalition had were limited to using conventional war machines to fight the foe. Fighting terror with terror would have met with immediate disapproval at home as well as from the international community and hence was unthinkable. The unfolding war effort therefore first defined where the enemy was and then took the fight to him. Operations in Afghanistan and then Iraq followed. It however soon became apparent to people in the coalition countries that terrorism could not be defeated unless terrorists, an extremely elusive lot, were eliminated. The objectives of the war needed to be redefined it appeared. The enemy was not ‘Terrorism’ but specific individuals who perpetuated terror (Terrorists), and conventional war machines deployed for the ‘War on Terrorism’ were falling short in many ways in neutralizing them. Casualties mounted, and as the dead and wounded were brought back home, the U.S. Government found it increasingly difficult to explain its stand particularly with respect to Iraq. The average citizen continued to support efforts to nab terrorists of the ilk of Osama Bin Laden, but had become loathe to the deployment of US troops in large numbers in theatres such as Iraq. Coverage of the happenings in the combat zones by the media and the liberal predictions they made of impending catastrophes that were waiting to happen, as well as first hand accounts from front line witnesses, added to the aversion the US citizen felt for the horrors of war. International support also began to dwindle sharply. At home there was increasing resistance from those who viewed the entire action to be a cover up to reduce civil liberties and justify searches and seizures otherwise not acceptable. Political scientists like Ian S. Lustick put forth the view that ‘War on Terror’ is not the solution to the problem. “It has become the problem” (Lustick, 2) he says in his preface to the book “Trapped in the War on Terror.” He holds the media responsible for having given unending attention to possible catastrophes or failures as consequences to “weak” government responses thus creating misinformation in people’s minds. Lustick further makes the point that the generalized War on Terror, which had begun as part of the justification for invading Iraq, then took on a life of its own fueled by media coverage. The evidence of the myth the government had created, and the consequences of citizens believing in the myth, were there for all to see. Hedges states that he wrote his book, “not to dissuade us from war but to understand it….. We must guard against the myth of war and the drug of war that can, together, render us as blind and callous as some of those we battle. (Hedges, 17). Today as the focus of the government shifts from Iraq to Iran as the rogue state there are perceptible changes in the public support to the policies of the government. The average citizen debates whether s/he should be reconciled to the horrible effects of war that were overlooked earlier when the government created the myth of inevitability of war. Is war to be considered as a struggle between the good and evil, as actions of people who claim to defend goodness because their acts will end the reign of evil forces? Chris Hedges emphasizes in his book that only if citizens changed their attitude and looked at wars as a horrifying experience would they ‘shield’ themselves from the myth of war and positively influence the decisions of governments. He says, “The only antidote to ward off self-destruction and the indiscriminate use of force is humility and, ultimately, compassion” [pg. 17]. The U.S. citizen today probably agrees to a large extent, and appears unable to reconcile ‘the inevitability of war’ with the ‘horror of war’ which leaves the government with its hands full containing this changing mood, and the decline in popular support for its policies on war. Works Cited Hedges, Chris. War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. Random House Inc. 2003. Lustick, Ian. S. Trapped in the War on Terrorism. University of Pennsylvania Press. 2006 Read More