American Strategy in the Global War on Terrorism - Literature review Example

The making of American strategy in the Global War on Terrorism America’s war on terror has raised many concerns in the world. After the destruction of World trade centre on 9/11, America has declared War on terror. Currently the war on terror is going on in Iraq, Afghanistan and also at the borders of Pakistan. Even though many of the Americans supported the war on terror initially, at present the support for war on terror is decreasing because of the concerns about the severe damage these wars can cause to American economy. Many Americans are of the view that the current economic crisis in America was occurred only because of the huge expenditure made in the war fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because of the growing concerns about the success of war on terror and the increasing economic problems, America cannot continue the war on terror infinitely. Many people are of the view that America cannot sustain its war on terror in this manner for a longer period and in all the probabilities it might be forced to cease the war on terror even before achieving the objectives. The current strategies seem to be inadequate in protecting the interests of the Americans. Moreover, many political and economical analysts are of the view that America should reassess its strategy from a realistic point of view to extricate itself from the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq to concentrate on the wider aspects of war on terrorism. The questions like; how a country can attack another country without convincing reasons; Why the rest of the world keeping silence even when two sovereign states attacked by a superpower; How the idealism of spreading democracy with the help of war can be justified; Is it necessary for America to take more pragmatic approach in fighting against terrorism etc seem to be relevant at present. This paper analyses the American strategy in the Global War on Terrorism with help of the opinions of Thucydides, Clausewitz and Richard Betts. Moreover my own opinion is also included at the end of this paper. Thucydides’ probable opinion Thucydides was a Greek historian lived in the 5th century BC. He was the author of the History of the Peloponnesian War, which narrates the 5th century BC war between Sparta and Athens. He is considered as the father of "scientific history" because of the scientific methods he adopted while gathering evidences and doing analysis in terms of cause and effect. He has also been considered as the father of political realism because of his famous opinions about the political relations between nations. According to Thucydides, within a given system of states, a certain hierarchy among the states determined the pattern of their relations. Therefore, he claimed that while a change in the hierarchy of weaker states did not ultimately affect a given system, a disturbance in the order of stronger states would decisively upset the stability of the system. He wrote that, in interstate relations, "the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept." For him, international relations allow the mighty do as they please and force the weak to suffer as they must. On the other hand, Thucydides illustrated the Cold War phenomenon of "polarization" among states, resulting from their strategic interaction1. The opinions of Thucydides seem to be antidemocratic which may not get much acceptance in the present world. It is unethical to permit stronger countries ruling the weaker countries. His opinion that the weaker countries should accept their destiny is against the core principles of globalization. Globalization theories demand the collective growth of all the countries under one umbrella irrespective of developing, developed or underdeveloped. If we would be able to seek the opinions of Thucydides about the current global war on terror, he would definitely support it. He sees no danger in stronger nations attacking weaker nations under any circumstances. In other words, Thucydides would have supported the current war on terror blindly. He would definitely support America’s war on terror as he believes that every country has the right to protect its people from any kind of external or internal threats. The Iraq war and Afghan war would be perceived by Thucydides as the unavoidable wars. In his opinion, the weaker nations should grab strength by forming alliances among them in order to counter the threats from stronger nations. Thucydides believed that a war is inevitable whenever a power imbalance occurs between nations. The stronger powers always like to attack the weak ones in order to strengthen their wings. Clausewitz’s probable opinion According to Clausewitz warfare has three main objects: (a) To conquer and destroy the armed power of the enemy; (b) To take possession of his material and other sources of strength, and (c) To gain public opinion. To accomplish the first purpose, we should always direct our principal operation against the main body of the enemy army or at least against an important portion of his forces. For only after defeating these can we pursue the other two objects successfully. In order to seize the enemy's material forces we should direct our operations against the places where most of these resources are concentrated: principal cities, storehouses, and large fortresses. On the way to these objectives we shall encounter the enemy's main force or at least a considerable part of it. Public opinion is won through great victories and the occupation of the enemy's capital2. In the Iraq war, America obtained the first two objectives whereas they failed to gather adequate public support. In Afghan war, America so far failed to achieve any of the three objectives of a war mentioned above. In short, Clausewitz would never accept America’s current war strategies either in Iraq or in Afghanistan because of their failure in achieving the objectives quickly. Clausewitz believes that the utmost energy should be used in wars in order to achieve the objectives. However, many Americans believe that the resources used for the war on terror actually put them under immense trouble now. Clausewitz would argue that the disadvantages of the war will be ceased sooner if America put the greatest efforts on these wars. In his opinion, making everyone confident of success in war is the best means for suddenly raising the nation's morale. Clausewitz would have blamed America for wasting time in its global war on terror. America is adopting a cautious effort in these wars in order to avoid the casualties as much as possible. However, Clausewitz would have criticized such war strategy as it may bring lot of negative results. “Unless important advantages are to be gained from hesitation, it is necessary to set to work at once. By this speed a hundred enemy measures are nipped in the bud, and public opinion is won most rapidly”3. The current war on terror strategies lacks the surprise factor. America is conducting these wars mechanically or professionally. No surprise packages were ever witnessed in these wars. Clausewitz would have blamed America for such lack of surprise strategies which slow down the progress in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Clausewitz believed in the integration of politics and social and economic issues, as some of the most important factors in deciding the outcomes of a war. The state should act in conjunction with the people and the army according to the war concepts of Clausewitz. The current global war on terror by America is not fully supported by the public either in America or in Iraq or in Afghanistan. The failures of these wars can be attributed to the failure of the American administration in gathering public support to these wars. Richard Betts’ probable opinion “Strategy is defined as a plan for using military means to achieve political ends or as “the use of engagements for the object of the war”4. In many wars, it is not clear before the fact that one side has superiority. Indeed, if it were, there would be fewer wars, because the weaker would more often capitulate without a fight. Where capabilities are nearly even, strategy provides the only alternative to stalemate. There are cases in which countries that lack clear superiority do use strategy to gain the edge; for example: Israel against the Arabs in 1967; Arabs against Israel in 1973; Britain against Argentina in 1982; North Vietnam against the United States, 1965–755 The above opinions expressed by Richard Betts are partly right when we analyze the current global war on terror. After the destruction of former Soviet Union, America emerged as the sole super power in the world and hence nobody has any doubt about the military strength of America and their ability to control the global politics in favor of them. If Richard Betts was right, countries like Iraq or the fundamentalists like the Taliban would never fought against America considering the superior military and economic powers of America. However, even after years of intense fight, America failed to achieve its military objectives either in Iraq or in Afghanistan. This is not because of the lack of military power, but lack of effectiveness of the strategies. Richard Betts is right in his opinion that sometimes strategies alone can bring victory in wars as it was witnessed in the Vietnam War. Richard Betts would definitely blame America for their failure in achieving military objectives either in Iraq or in Afghanistan. In his opinion, “some strategies prove successful in the short term, only to prove counterproductive soon afterward”6. In Iraq, American strategies seem to be successful up to certain extent; however it is difficult to forecast the future consequences now. At the same time in Afghanistan, America seems to be clueless in destroying or attacking the Taliban bases. Nothing seems to be working for America in Afghanistan. Richard Betts believes that “losing the war but winning the peace, is possible”. He has argued that in the 1970s U.S. strategy failed in Vietnam; however Southeast Asia was more stable after the Vietnam War7. Richard Betts may compare the Vietnam War outcomes with the outcomes of the current war on terror. He may argue that the possibility of a prosperous Iraq in future is unquestionable. He may also argue that Afghanistan would become more stable after the war on terror. However, considering the political, economical and cultural dimensions of Vietnam War and that of the current global war on terror, it is hard to anticipate a more stable Afghanistan or Iraq in future. Vietnam War was confined within the boundaries of Vietnam, but the current global war on terror is not confined either within Iraq or Afghanistan alone. Religious fundamentalism is growing across the world more rapidly than ever before. Under such circumstances, anticipating a more peaceful and stable world order after the war on terror is extremely difficult and illogical. My Own Opinion The current war on terror strategies lack consistency and proper shape. Even though both in Afghanistan and in Iraq, America is fighting against the common enemy, the strategies seem to be different in Afghanistan and Iraq. While America engages in an all out attack in Iraq, it uses targeted attacks in Afghanistan. In other words, America is not conducting a complete war in Afghanistan as they did in Iraq. In fact the hardcore terrorist Bin Laden is believed to be in the frontiers of Afghanistan or Pakistan. Even then America is not showing the same enthusiasm in capturing Bin Laden as they showed in the case of Saddam. The reasons cited for attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan are entirely different. In Iraq America accused that Saddam itself is leading the terrorist networks whereas in Afghanistan they suspect a Muslim fundamentalist group (Taliban) as the culprits. In short, in Afghanistan the war was conducted against a terrorist group whereas in Iraq it was against a single person. In Afghanistan, America is getting support from the administration whereas in Iraq the administration itself was at the opposite end earlier. “The dispute about whether to go to war in Iraq was between two competing theories of international politics: realism and the neo-conservatism that underpins the Bush doctrine”8. The reasons cited for the Iraq war is still indigestible to many of the neutral political observers. Many people are of the view that President Bush had certain hidden agendas in conducting the war on terror at least in Iraq. When we analyze the war on terror, both in Iraq and Afghanistan it is evident that the reasons cited were not real. Bush accused Iraq for the possession of weapons of mass destruction and labelled Saddam as the major leader of the evil forces. Even after the execution of Saddam, America’s war on terror in Iraq not over yet. In Iraq, peace is not established yet even though an elected toy government is in power. America failed to find out any chemical or nuclear weapons in Iraq even after the execution of Saddam, Tariq Aziz and chemical Ali. In Afghanistan also, the case is not much different. America is searching in the darkness both in Iraq and Afghanistan which shows clearly the ineffectiveness of the strategies. Lots of civilian causalities were also reported from Iraq and Afghanistan which clearly underlines the necessity of revision of the strategies. In my opinion, United States has a golden opportunity at present to rule the world because of the destruction of former Soviet Union and any other superpowers in the world. America thinks that the current war on terror will be a lesson for other countries like Iran and North Korea. Earlier America labelled Iraq, North Korea and Iran as the axis of evil forces because of their suspected nexus in conducting terrorist activities in the world. Iraq is already surrendered to America and many people forecast another war between America and Iran or America and North Korea in the near future itself. George Bush thought that the current war on terror will prevent both North Korea and Iran form their effort to achieve nuclear power. However, America failed to prevent these countries from achieving nuclear arsenal and the strategies seem to be ineffective at least in the case of Iran and North Korea. The Bush doctrine of spreading democracy through wars in Middle East and Afghanistan like radical Muslim dominated countries has failed miserably so far. “Iran's foreign minister has recently said that former US President George W. Bush's so-called war on terror has actually served as a guide for training terrorists rather than destroying the terrorists”9. In other words, the current war on terror strategies seems to be serving as a morale booster for the terrorists. Smith (2010) has mentioned that a group of "realist" scholars and activists have written President Obama urging him to reconsider America's commitment in Afghanistan whereas leading conservative and neo-conservative thinkers backing a more muscular American presence in Afghanistan10 . American public are still not much sure about the effectiveness of the current war on terror. Some of them think that the war on terror should be strengthened whereas others believe that another Vietnam experience would be the end result of current war on terror and the strategies need to be re-evaluated. There are many complaints about the physical torture conducted by the American military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such incidents will reduce even the slightest support enjoyed by the American military in these countries from the common public. Steve Inskeep (2010) has pointed out that in a desperate drive to catch suspected terrorists before they can strike, the United States is using torture and other harsh interrogation techniques. But that can often lead to more problems, including wild goose chases due to unreliable information generated under duress11 . Shah (2007) has pointed out that the bombing of Afghanistan to attack Osama Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban, resulted in around 3,500 civilian deaths, as of December 200112(Shah). These statistics and facts underline the failures of the strategies used in these wars by the Americans. The war on terror has lost its direction currently. The attacks intended to destroy the shelters of terrorists is actually killing and torturing innocent people which is unacceptable under any circumstances. In my opinion, it is not good for US to continue the war on terror in its present form. At the same time, it is a fact that the terrorists need to be punished. Any attacks intended to destroy the terrorist should never cause any problems or damages to the innocent people. America should redefine its strategies in a more pragmatic way to counter the terrorism in an effective manner. Democracy is a good concept compared to many other forms of government; but the spreading of democracy through wars is unacceptable under any circumstances. Conclusions American strategies in the current global war on terror need to be revised or restructured thoroughly. Even the fighting American troops or the administration have no ideas about how long these wars would be conducted and what would be the outcomes of these wars. Keeping the innocent people of two sovereign states under the sword of the Damocles is not a good idea. The public support for these wars is decreasing rapidly which clearly shows the importance of new strategies in conducting war on terror or fighting against terrorism. Bibliography 1. Betts, Richard K. 2000. Is Strategy an Illusion? International Security, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Fall 2000), pp. 5–50 2. Clausewitz, Carl Von. 1942. Principles of War. Accessed on 23 December 2010 from http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/Principles/#IIIa 3. Inskeep, Steve. 2010. The Drawbacks of Fighting Terrorism with Torture. Accessed on 23 December 2010 from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5519633 4. Iran: US War on Terror, Plot to Train Terrorists.2010. Accessed on 23 December 2010 from http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=119836§ionid=351020101 5. Kemos, Alexander. The Influence of Thucydides in the Modern World. Accessed on 23 December 2010 from http://www.hri.org/por/thucydides.html 6. Mearsheimer, John J. 2005. Hans Morgenthau and the Iraq War: Realism Versus Neo- conservatism. Accessed on 23 December 2010 from http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/morgenthau_2522.jsp 7. Shah, Anup. 2007. War on Terror. Accessed on 23 December 2010 from http://www.globalissues.org/issue/245/war-on-terror 8. Smith, Ben.2009. Realists Warn on Afghan War. Accessed on 23 December 2010 from http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/Realists_warn_on_Afghan_war.html Read More