Realism and the War on TerrorEssay Preview: Realism and the War on TerrorReport this essayCan America win the war on terror?Just to comment briefly on the question, Americas war on terror is a highly simplistic characterisation of something so complex. Saying war can be easily waged against terror makes it seem as if it can be easily won. Americas war on terror is like waging a war on littering or waging a war against racism (which still goes on in the US and most parts of the world) . It cannot be fully won but it can be controlled to an extent.
If the US aims to win this war on terror the US has to look at the why and how question of terrorism, the underlying causes, and it has to find a solution. America also needs to re-examine its foreign policies in the Middle East and to the rest of the world, America needs to change it strategies towards dealing with threats, crisis and conflicts, and until it does, the US wouldnt be terrorists prime target.
However, just to keep a balance view, one should look at the series of events that led the US to wage this war on terror, one has to examine the strategies for winning this war and whether or not this war on terror has been a success in relation to the question.
According to the US federal statute, “terrorism means premeditated politically motivated violence perpetrated against non combatant targets by sub national groups intended to influence an audience” (Hayden, Lansford, Watson, 2003 xii). These acts can either be done through bombings, hijacking or even kidnapping. This definition of terrorism as a “premeditated politically motivated violence” shows the extreme measures that terrorist groups are willing to take in order to change the structure in their society, which leads to the question of why such extreme measures have been taken to warrant change in their society. Terrorism has resulted as a product of globalisation, which makes the threat more imminent than ever. Terrorists will always have the element of surprise to their advantage they dont necessarily need to posses advance technological weapons this was proved during 911.
The first thing one has to understand is that terrorism did not spring up overnight, it has been going on for centuries also, terrorist attacks has been aimed at the US through bombings of US embassies in Tanzania, Kenya and Lebanon. It wasnt until the events of 9/11, which prompted America to wage this war on terror.
The US foreign policy following the incident of 9/11 changed drastically in a number of ways, firstly it showed the vulnerability of the US on its own soil, which increased the threat to the US security. This also brought terrorist awareness to the US.
Secondly, America felt it could be attacked again at any time in the near future; government experts were able to point out that WMDs could easily accessed and deployed on the US. Thirdly, terrorism became the number one agenda on the US foreign policy; before 911 intelligence operations had existed it wasnt until 911 that they were given high priority, with the creation of the Homeland Security, which is aimed to protect America from terrorism. Fourthly, the US doctrine changed from one of containment and deterrence as was used during the Cold War, to the use of prevention and pre-emption. Which is a highly controversial issue that will be addressed later in the essay.
The question can America win the war on terrorism is an extremely debatable issue. On the one hand America could win the war on terror if they could offer a plausible explanation as to why its a subject of terrorism to its citizens. After 911 Bush focused more on the inexplicable acts of the terrorist rather than why America was targeted in the first place.
“They hate what we see right here in this chamber- a democratically elected government, their leaders are self appointed. They hate our freedoms- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other”
(Hayden, Lansford, Watson 2003 29)Bushes speech doesnt offer an explanation at all, rather it focuses more on the “they hate us because were a democracy” this is very unenlightening after all, there are other democratic states in the world and some which are even more democratic than the US but they did not warrant the large scale attack of 911. It leads to the question why us instead of them? “Many Americans are held back from achieving a better understanding of how their government is perceived by knowing so little of their own history.” (Booth and Dune 2002 3) This was evident during Bushes campaign when he couldnt name the President of Pakistan.
However there are reasons why the US never offered a just explanation for the 911 attacks, partly because it would be admitting a glitch in its foreign policy in the Middle East, and its policies toward the Islamic world, particularly the role it played in the Iraq-Iran war, the Gulf war, the failure of the US to remain in Afghanistan after defeating the Soviets in 1988 these are all factors that led to the growth of terrorism towards the US. Other factors such as the neo-conservatives and Congress who tend to be pro-Israeli and interest groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the American Muslim Alliance (AMA), to name a few. “These different interest groups attempt to frame foreign policy in terms of American national interests when confronting US policy elites.” (Hayden, Lansford and Watson ,2003 81). This would also invoke sympathy in the American people and they would turn around and blame the US government for the attacks.
On the other hand if America had sought to determine the cause, it still would not necessarily eliminate the threat, but it would shed light to understanding the nature of terrorism itself.
In this war on terror Bush has paid more attention to treating the symptoms of terrorism, if you look at Afghanistans Operation Enduring Freedom, Bush was successful in overthrowing the Taliban regime, disrupting some of al-Qaeda cells and setting up a democratic government and liberating the Afghan people, rounding up allies, increasing airport security at home and improving Homeland Security. Although he disrupted al-Qaeda , America still did not manage to catch Bin Laden or his number two. These are all advantages to ensuring US security, but never the less it has nothing to do with altering or identifying the root causes of terrorism. As mentioned before understanding the motivation for these attacks is a crucial element. Also, the war on terror shouldnt be waged against people; it should be waged against peoples motivations, what motivates terrorist is global poverty, as cited in the US National Security Strategy of 2002, “poverty,
A very important lesson to be learned is the responsibility to control. People are not at risk if they decide to participate in something they have no control over, for example in war. It’s like a drug addict asking the right questions, trying to get on his medication. If you are in crisis trying to make sense of the situation, and are willing to take to the street, some people will tell you that no drugs are required and that the public should know that they can take the drug if they choose, etc… It may be best to take care of that person while they are inside, without the fear of repercussion, and in a state of chaos they will be able to get away with being the same person who did this. Many people say that the war on terror means the world is turned upside down, that the war on terrorism is too dangerous, as it can be seen in this graphic by the WashingtonPost.com which shows:”A government has to take responsibility when a terrorist attack occurs. The fact that such a group is not responsible must be confirmed.”
In general, if an individual were to commit a criminal act where his or her motivation is clear, an act should not be considered a new crime. An action based on “the fact of being complicit,” should be avoided. And what is true of individuals against their will is something that can be confirmed by observation.
An act of self defense is important, not an act of suicide, when faced with a situation ripe for revenge, and the enemy should be able to justify doing so just as in a case of war, where a person feels he or she has the right to kill and can’t justify his or her actions.
So to quote a recent Harvard professor:”If we have an individual taking his or her life to prevent a terrorist attack, we should not assume that this individual has been completely innocent, because we need to protect ourselves.”
The primary responsibility of the United States (especially the military and the State) is to protect civilians in war…
If there is a moral or ethical obligation to combat terrorism if possible, then terrorism will not be stopped.
The fact that no single individual in the world does not know the risks and the rewards of war is a serious factor. In the past, many nations that did not think their military had the manpower to protect civilians had their military out on many battlefields. It was a much bigger challenge than it is today, because war is a massive campaign of deception, deception, deception – when you are surrounded by all kinds of threats, you cannot be sure what to look for until you are physically on some battlefield. This is why we tend to put more emphasis on what is happening in war…
Military may be a factor in reducing the incidence of terrorist acts on U.S. soil, but military action is also a factor when using military authority to prevent further attacks.
In all wars, there are many options of action, and the US military is often forced to choose between military or political, just as every country does when dealing with a war in Africa.
Military Actions
If the United States is really going to have a lot of casualties, it probably should use military force. The cost of military action at our disposal is relatively low, depending on how many casualties are incurred. Military action is also often not used against a lot of civilians or military targets who do not need to be taken alive. The U.S. military uses most of its forces in the Middle East, Africa, and North America.[/p>
It would be difficult for us to have as much time spent conducting terrorist strikes, because we are in the middle of this conflict.
Even to say