War on Terror - Research Paper Example

 The War on Terror is a phrase normally applied to a worldwide military operation led by the United States along with the United Kingdom with the assistance of other NATO, in addition to non-NATO countries. Initially, the campaign was incepted against al-Qaeda along with other militant outfits with the intention of eliminating them (Barc, 2007). The expression 'War on Terror' was initially used by US President George W. Bush along with other senior US officials to signify a global armed, political, ideological and legal struggle against organizations selected as terrorists and governments that were associated with them or granting them with assistance or were supposed, or portrayed as presenting a danger to the US and its partners in general. It was characteristically used with a specific focus on radical Islamists along with al-Qaeda. Although the phrase is not formally used by the government of US President Barack Obama, it is still frequently used by political leaders, in the media and formally by some sections of government, like the United States' Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. It was with incredulity and fright that people across the world saw video recording of the terrorist assaults in the US during September 11, 2001 when the projectiles crashed into the World Trade Center towers and also smashed the Pentagon. This eventually led America to declare and wage a war on “terror”. Osama Bin Laden was finally captured and killed after a period of 10 years. However, the approach the war on terror has been accomplished has led to numerous people voicing concerns regarding the effect on civil liberties, the price of the extra security focused alterations, the implications of the incursions and conflicts in Iraq as well as Afghanistan, and others. The sources of al-Qaeda as a group inspiring terrorism across the world and instructing operatives can be drawn from the Soviet war in Afghanistan (December 1979 – February 1989). In May 1996, the outfit World Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders (WIFJAJC), supported by Osama bin Laden and which afterward reformed as al-Qaeda, began forming a large foundation of activities in Afghanistan, at the time when the Islamist radical regime of the Taliban had taken power that particular year. Osama bin Laden authorized a fatwā in February 1998, as the leader of al-Qaeda, proclaiming war on the West along with Israel. Afterward in May of that particular year al-Qaeda made public a video pronouncing war on America and the West. Conceivably, the expression "War on Terror" has been applied to specifically denote the ongoing armed campaign spearheaded by the America, UK and their partners against factions and regimes recognized by them as radical, and do not include other independent counter-terrorist actions and campaigns like those by Russia along with India. The clash has further been recognized to by descriptions other than the War on Terror. The "war on terror" has developed a culture of dread in America. The Bush regime's promotion of these three terms into a national hymn since the dreadful events of 9/11 has had a destructive effect on American democracy, on America's psyche as well as on U.S. position in the world. Using this expression has actually destabilized America’s ability to successfully tackle the real challenges encountered from radicals who may use terrorism against the US. The harm these three terms have done -- a typical self-inflicted injury is infinitely larger than any wild visions entertained by the zealous perpetrators of the 9/11 assaults when they were planning against America in far-away Afghan caves. The slogan itself is hollow. It describes neither a geographic background nor our supposed enemies. Terrorism is not an adversary but a method of warfare -- political bullying through the murder of defenseless non-combatants. But the diminutive secret here could be that the imprecision of the phrase was intentionally (or impulsively) calculated by its supporters. Constant mention of a "war on terror" did achieve one major purpose: It enthused the surfacing of a culture of dread. Fear obscures cause, intensifies sentiments and makes it simpler for demagogic politicians to drum up the public on behalf of the strategies they want to track. The war of preference in Iraq could by no means have achieved the congressional approval it got without the psychological connection between the upset of 9/11 and the hypothesized existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Support for President Bush during the 2004 ballot votes was further mobilized partially by the concept that "a country at war" does not alter its commander in chief in halfway through. The sense of an omnipresent but otherwise inexact danger was consequently channeled in a politically convenient direction by the marshaling demand of being "at war." To validate the "war on terror," the government has lately developed a false historical story that could even transform into a self-fulfilling prophecy. By declaring that its war is comparable to previous U.S. conflicts against Nazism as well as then Stalinism the regime could be organizing the case for conflict with Iran. Such conflict would then thrust America into a prolonged conflict straddling Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and possibly also Pakistan. The culture of terror is like an apparition that has been released from its bottle. It obtains a life of its own -- and can be converted into demoralizing. America at the moment is not the self-confident and resolute nation that countered to Pearl Harbor; neither is it the America that listened from its leader, at an additional moment of catastrophe, the influential words "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" (Covarrubias et al, 2009); nor is it the tranquil America that fought the Cold War with calm persistence regardless of the knowledge that a genuine war could be started America is now divided, unsure and potentially extremely susceptible to fright in the occasion of another terrorist attack in the America itself. That is the consequence of five years of more or less continuous countrywide brainwashing on the topic of terror, rather unlike the more subdued reactions of numerous other nations (Germany, Japan, Italy, Spain and Britain, Japan) that further have suffered tender terrorist acts. In his newest explanation for his conflict in Iraq, President Bush still claims ridiculously that he has to keep on waging it for fear that al-Qaeda pass through the Atlantic to open a conflict of terror here in America. Such fright-mongering, toughened by security industrialists, the mass media, in addition to the entertainment sector, generates its own impetus. The terror sponsors, usually described as specialists on terrorism, are unavoidably engaged in competition to validate their existence. For this reason, their duty is to encourage the public that it experiences new threats. That puts a finest on the presentation of plausible scenarios of ever-more-horrible acts of brutality, occasionally even with outlines for their completion. That the US has become insecure and additionally paranoid is barely debatable. A fresh study detailed that, in 2003, Congress recognized 160 sites as potentially significant national aims for would-be terrorists. The entertainment sector has, in addition jumped into the act. Therefore, the TV serials along with films (in which the malevolence characters have identifiable Arab features) occasionally emphasized by religious signs that exploit public nervousness and rouse Islamophobia. Arab facial typecasts, particularly in tabloid cartoons, have occasionally been rendered in a way sadly suggestive of the Nazi anti-Semitic crusades. Recently, even some university student associations have become occupied in such propagation, actually oblivious to the threatening connection between the inspiration of cultural and religious hatreds and the setting free of the unparalleled crimes of the Holocaust. The ambiance developed by the "war on terror" has inspired legal and political aggravation of Arab Americans (commonly loyal Americans) for behavior that has not been exceptional to them. An example is the reported persecution of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) for its efforts to copy, not very effectively, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Several House Republicans lately described CAIR affiliates as "terrorist apologists" who must not be permitted to use a Capitol meeting area for a panel debate (Ruschmann, 2011). Social favoritism, for instance toward Muslim air voyagers, has too been its accidental byproduct. Not astonishingly, animus toward the America even amid Muslims otherwise not mainly concerned with the Middle East has deepened, while America's standing as a leader in nurturing positive interracial and interreligious affairs has suffered egregiously. The evidence is even more upsetting in the general vicinity of civil rights. The culture of horror has bred prejudice, suspicion of strangers and the implementation of legal procedures that weaken fundamental conceptions of justice. Innocent until confirmed guilty has been thinned if not undone, with certain -- even U.S. populace incarcerated for long periods of time with no effective and punctual access to due procedure. There is no acknowledged, hard substantiation that such overindulgence has prevented momentous acts of terrorism, and assurances for potential terrorists of some kind have been not many and far between. Sooner or later Americans will be as embarrassed of this record as they currently have become of the previous instances in U.S. history of fright by the several prompting prejudice against the few. In the interim, the "war on terror" has grimly damaged the United States globally. For Muslims, the resemblance between the brutalities of Iraqi residents by the U.S. military along with of the Palestinians by the Israelis has prompted an extensive sense of antagonism toward America in general. It is not the "war on terror" that annoys Muslims watching the bulletin on television; it is the persecution of Arab civilians. And the antipathy is not restricted to Muslims. An up to date BBC survey of 28,000 people in 27 nations that hunted respondents' appraisals of the function of states in global affairs resulted in Iran, America and Israel as the nations with the most unconstructive influence on the globe. Alas, for certain people that is the novel axis of evil! The episodes of 9/11 could have ended up in a truly worldwide solidarity against radicalism and terrorism. A global coalition of moderates, comprising Muslim ones, occupied in a purposeful operation both to extirpate the precise terrorist networks as well as to finish the political conflicts that generate terrorism. Only a self-assuredly determined, and sensible America can encourage genuine global security which then leaves no political room for terrorism. Where is the U.S. head ready to say, enough of this madness stops this obsession? Even in the face of potential terrorist assaults, the probabilities of which cannot be left without let us manifest some sense. The war on terror can be addressed more effectively through a collaborative approach through which the government will involve other country governments as well as non-state actors in the development of an anti terror awareness program through which the fundamental ideology could be tackled (Ramraj, 2012). Through such a program terrorism could be handed diplomatically without creating more hatred among Arabs and Muslims. Subsequently, to avoid the bad American reputation, the war on terror ought to be tracked at an international level with world bodies like United Nations taking centre stage. Indiscriminate arrests, murder and detention should be stopped, and cases of Arab profiling brought to an end. Organizations like al-Qaida should be granted sanctions and Arab countries forced to cooperate with international bodies in addressing terrorists and tackling terrorist organizations. In general, the United States should abandon its single-handed approach towards terrorism so as to end the prevailing discrimination and brutality against Arabs and Muslims on one hand and to create a consultative forum for policy participation. More parties ought to be incorporated in the policy development process for security and terrorism and the war on terror should be renamed counter-terrorism campaign. Such a gesture will create a convenient room for collaboration in dealing with terrorism and will be a formidable replacement for war on terror which has proved to be a failure, as well as an incubator of hatred. Collaboration, consultation, and international participation are the key to an excellent solution of the terrorism problem in the United States. References Barc, G. (2007). War On Terror: Is The World A Safer Place? Washington: Heinemann Library. Covarrubias et al., (2009). America's War on Terror. New York: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Ramraj, V. (2012). Global Anti-Terrorism Law and Policy. London: Cambridge University Press. Ruschmann, P. (2011). The War on Terror. Washington: Chelsea House. Read More