Has the Global War on Terrorism increased our saftey?

Question

The Global War on Terrorism

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the United States found itself caught in a precarious position. All of a sudden, the country was no longer safe, and steps had to be taken to assure the safety of the American people. On September 18, 2001, the U.S Congress authorized the president to: “use all necessary force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons” (U.S Congress). The Bush Administration took initiatives in securing the safety of the country by creating the Department of Homeland Security, implementing the Patriot Act, invading Afghanistan and invading Iraq in 2003. This paper entails information on the “War on Terrorism” and isolates objectives, strategies, and preventative measures taken in the aftermath of September 11.
Israel’s Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabbin first coined the phrase, “War on Terrorism” in 1992 to describe the conflict with Palestinian nationalism. However, there is a problem with the phrase “War on Terrorism,” stemming from the confusion and controversy surrounding the word “terrorism.” There are a multitude of definitions that describe terrorism yet some of them are in direct conflict with one another. The FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (FBI 1999). Another similar definition comes from the UN, whom describes terrorism as, “the act of destroying or injuring civilian lives or the act of destroying or damaging civilian or government property without the expressly chartered permission of a specific government, thus, by individuals or groups acting independently or governments on their own accord and belief in an attempt to effect some political goals” (White). The definitions are very much the same but are also very distinct in context. The UN’s definition of terrorism is very specific in describing the context of terrorism while the FBI’s definition is relatively vague and lacks the necessary detail in defining the threat. According to the FBI, almost any act of aggression could be deemed as terrorism. It does not specify whether the use of force is coming from; civilians, the domestic government, or another country. Inevitably, this will lead to confusion over which events could be considered terrorist attacks and which ones cannot. The UN on the other hand makes very clear who the force has to come from, leading to less confusion, when identifying terrorist attacks. The point that is trying to be made here is that there are many different perceptions of terrorism and what it is. Different definitions of the term create confusion over how to handle the situation as well as confusion over who the terrorists really are.
One of the first initiatives the Bush Administration took in response to the September 11 attacks was the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The department was created nine days after the attacks on America. The government stated that, “the mission of the Office will be to develop and coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure the United States from terrorist threats or attacks. The Office will coordinate the executive branch's efforts to detect, prepare for, prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks within the United States”(Wikipedia). The department is comprised of 22 agencies already in existence. The idea behind creating the department was to increase interoperability between agencies and increase information sharing among the various groups. The agencies under the Department of Homeland Security umbrella include the U.S Coast Guard, the U.S Secret Service, U.S Customs and Border Control, and the Transportation Security Administration to name a few. Although the department has had much success in the last few years, it is not without its own problems.
There is much confusion over what the definition of the Department of Homeland Security is. According to Jonathan White, the confusion stems from the fact that the United States is dealing with a new concept. In the past, homeland security was considered a military responsibility. Through our military might and unique capability to project power around the globe, the United States Armed Forces were seen as the most potent weapon in protecting the homeland. However, the world has changed and the methods of protecting the Continental U.S have had to adapt as well. We are no longer fighting a war with a specific state or country; we are fighting a faceless enemy that acts under a flag and ideology of their own. This has led to an increased need for information sharing between existing agencies and the ability to react quickly through advanced communication. The purpose of the Department of Homeland Security is to create a network, so that our agencies will become interoperable and can react to terrorist threats swiftly and decisively.
Perhaps one of the most controversial policies created by the Bush Administration after the September 11 attacks is the Patriot Act. The intention of the Act is to help cut out the bureaucratic red tape, that very often hinders investigations, and to allow authorities to gain sensitive information from sources, that without the Patriot Act, might take months to receive. The act allows us to be able to move on information quickly, which is essential when dealing with these dynamic terrorist groups. However, there are people who are weary about the extended power the government has under the act. “Much controversy has arisen over section 215, which allows judges to grant government investigators ex parte orders to look into personal records (including financial, medical, phone, Internet, student or library records) on the basis of being "relevant for an on going investigation concerning international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities", rather than probable cause as outlined in the fourth amendment”(White). People who are skeptical about the act state that the Patriot Act will lead to an infringement of civil liberties such as; freedom of speech, human rights, and the right to privacy. True as this may be, it may be necessary to combat the threat of terrorism within the United States.
The 2001 Invasion of Afghanistan marked the opening shots of the United States “War on Terrorism.” The purpose of the invasion was to seek and destroy Al Qaeda warriors operating in the region, and to oust the Taliban Government that had supplied and funded Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The attack commenced on October 7th when American and British forces began raining down Tomahawk Missiles on Al Qaeda training camps and air defense systems throughout the country. “The strikes initially focused on the area in and around the cities of Kabul, Jalalabad, and Kandahar. Within a few days, most al-Qaeda training sites had been severely damaged and the Taliban's air defenses had been destroyed” (Wikipedia). The Taliban forces quickly fell to the superior firepower of the United States and by November 2nd ,most of the Taliban forces had been completely decimated. However, this did not mean the fighting was over and in fact, is still going on. It is widely accepted that the U.S invasion has done wonders in the “War on Terrorism.” The idea behind it is that if the terrorists are on the run and are loosing their footing in their own homeland, they will not be able to plan and carry out future attacks on the United States and her allies. At the other end of the spectrum, there are those that say the invasion has made us less safe. Their thinking is that by attacking Afghanistan, we have done nothing more than enrage the Arab world, which in turn, will lead to more terrorist attacks on the United States.
On March 17 2003, President Bush addressed the nation and the world. As part of the ongoing “War on Terrorism,” he announced that war with Iraq was virtually immanent. Under the premise that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda, the United States felt it was necessary to remove Saddam from power. The President stated in his address that, “All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing (George Bush).” The attack began shortly after the deadline passed. Within two hours of the expired deadline, explosions could be heard in Baghdad. The opening attack was called “Shock and Awe,” an idea loosely based of the German Blitzkrieg. It was thought that overwhelming fire power would shatter the resistance’s will to fight and would allow for a quick take over of the country. Within three weeks, the Iraqi government fell and most of the Iraqi Armed Forces were either killed, captured, left combat ineffective, or defected from their army. Major combat operations were declared over on May 1st 2003. However, the fighting was long from over and coalition forces are still engaged in combat with insurgents.
Supposedly, the invasion of Iraq was intended; to remove a vicious dictator who wielded WMD, liberate an oppressed people, and create a safer America in doing said objectives. According to government reports, nary a weapon of mass destruction was found, further decreasing U.S approval and support throughout the world. The War in Iraq was met with strong criticism from the very beginning. Cries of human rights abuses were heard and the fact that “the Bush administration failed to get a U.N. endorsement for war against Iraq on March 17, 2003 and began the invasion on March 20, 2003, which is seen by many as a violation of international law, breaking the UN Charter”(Wikipedia). This led to many people being against the war. Just like the war in Afghanistan, the War in Iraq was intended to make America safer. Though much of the country is now against the war, there are still many who believe we are safer for it.


PERSONAL RESPONSE


September 11 2001, was an incredibly powerful and devastating event that has affected, and will continue to affect the United States and the world as a whole. The ramifications of that day reverberate in the day-to-day events; most of us took for granted, before the attacks. The paranoia and uncertainty that was felt in the wake of the attacks was unparalleled, and for once, Americans felt unsafe in their own country. This of course, was completely unacceptable and measures had to be taken to rectify the situation. Among these measures were the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. All of which fall under the scope of initiatives created by the United States to wage a “War on Terrorism.”
There is no doubt that the Department of Homeland Security is a beneficial agency for protecting the United States against terrorist activity. One of our major weaknesses against preventing terrorist attacks came from the inability to coordinate strategic operations with coexisting agencies. Quite simply, the Department of Homeland Security paved the way for this unity. All of our agencies working independently proved to be far less affective than when they work together. This is why a system was devised to bring the agencies together. For example, it is argued by some that the police force is our most important and effective weapon in combating terrorism. Their unique ability to respond to calls of terrorist activity or attacks rapidly is unmatched by any other agency involved in homeland security. The police are more likely to come across terrorists than anyone else is because they are constantly, “out in the mix,” so to speak. When you unite a group like this with other agencies involved with homeland security priorities, you increase the effectiveness and power the two groups’ project. The same goes for all of the other agencies in the web of the Homeland Security initiative.
There is no doubt that the Patriot Act is somewhat of a hypocritical policy, in terms of what the U.S Constitution states. It does allow the government to pry into peoples affairs and does allow them to invade people’s privacy. The main reason the act has caught so much criticism is because of the increased power the government now holds because of it. In my opinion, the Patriot Act is not a threat to the typical American citizen and is probably a necessity in giving authorities the ability to respond to imminent attacks before they happen. The Patriot Act does not affect law-biding citizens and for that matter, does not effect minor criminals either. The purpose of the act is to give the freedom to investigate and too monitor known terrorist threats. The Patriot Act, properly administered, will assist in the prevention of future terrorist attacks on the homeland, creating a safer climate for all of us to live in.
Perhaps the most controversial and extreme efforts inspired by the “War on Terrorism,” are the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Above all other initiatives implemented by the Bush Administration, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are the most direct approaches the United States has taken toward combating terrorism. It is my contention that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have made the United States safer from terrorist attacks. By going after the terrorists, instead of letting them come to you, you keep them on the run and effectively limit their ability to plan and carry out terrorist attacks. The fact of the matter is, that the terrorists are to busy fighting the U.S, to strike us again. This is not to say that they are unable to hit us, but the war makes it considerably more difficult for the terrorists to carry out an offensive. Ultimately, the United States will prevail in Iraq and lay a foundation for a democratic Iraqi Government. Once this is achieved, the terrorist networks will begin to unfold and the likelihood of attacks will decrease. It will take patients, but at the end of the day, the world will be a safer place for having dismantled two terrorist countries.

Answer 1

Does the Pope crap in the woods?

Answer 2

When there was a threat of nuclear war or invasion people held together. Governments knew where their bread was buttered and towed the line all agencies worked in unison with their global power to keep the pot from boiling over.

Now there is one global power it is hated because it is the sole power and is abusive of that power.

Use of power is abuse.

Why should the rest of the world live on the US agenda?

This is what the terrorist or freedom fighters ask however extreme.

The more they rattle their cage the more response they get, the more abuse occurs.

The pot heats up.

Is it safer - no

Was it inevitable after the fall of USSR - Yes but we didn't see it coming.

Will it be resolved - no the world will move on other issues will arise and the war on terror will go by the wayside like Apartheid or the cold war.

Will the world be safer in the future - no as we progress more power lies in the hands of each individual, making the world more dangerous with each generation that passes.

Answer 3

"Global" may be a bit strong for a war where 70 percent or so of our troop/military focus has been on one country... Iraq...

and the other 30 on Afghanistan...

so two countries, with a major focus on one... does not a global war make...

and the al-queda ties to Iraq in the first place were some of the smallest in the middle east...

so we're focusing the majority of our might on the country with the least links to terror (especially those that attacked us, according to the 9-11 report) in the middle east..

I don't feel any safer

Answer 4

[e-mail]. Yes as in Penn State, Main Campus. I hope you have done your research, I really do because my History professors have not. I should not have said that and it was out of character and I appologize, you seem like an intelligent person. I will warn you though, I have done alot more than watch Loose Change. Many families of 9/11 victims are saying the same thing as me and actually played a major role in getting the movement started.

Answer 5

no, no, no. thanks for your piece. it was refreshing to see a balanced view of writing that seems to generally try to get to grips with the issues and not just parrot one extremist line or the other but you are wrong in your assessment of the iraq war, i think.

while the war to remove al-qaeda from its bases in afghanistan can be defended much as you suggest, the war in iraq is another matter entirely. you describe it as "dismantling" a terrorist country. only part of that is accurate: unfortunately, the war may have dismantled the country but it has made it into a failed state that now has far more anti-american feeling and "terrorist" sympathisers than ever before. it is, as agencies of your govt now acknowledge, the biggest recruiting sergeant for terrorists.

the war has been a disaster. an occupying army in the post WW2 world, where self-defence and self-determination are ideas so mainstream that they are the basic tenets of international law (Articles of the UN constitution), will always face legitimate resistance. added to this is the fact that what happened on 11th sept 2001 is not the beginning of affairs as your account and many others imply.

your govt has been supporting anti-democratic arab regimes (including saddam) and of course the racist, expanisionist, Zionist israel for 60 years. the terrorists didn't start this. your country did. thus, there has been lingering anti-americanism in the region for ages. NOT because they hate your freedom, but because they hate your foreign policy.

this war has only proved them right and thus the numbers of people who hate america has grown exponentially. you are killing, raping and torturing their compatriots and co-religionists (none of the attackers on that day was from afghanistan or iraq, remember - by suggesting the war is fighting them in their back yard, you neglect this fact. it is not about states) your safest point was after the afghan war. now, you are far less safe than you were before the events that killed 3000 in New York.

Answer 6

I think so, yes. Afterall we haven't sustained another attack since, and many plots were discovered and foiled. I think the reason many people say they don't feel safer is because people are actually aware of terrorism now. During the Clinton administration, Clinton chose not to make anti-terrorism a priority, and america just kind of ignored it. Now, after 9/11, people think about terrorism, and are not ignorant of it. This realization of terrorism can easily be mistaken for a feeling of little security.

Answer 7

I am sorry, I must have fallen asleep at the intermission and slept through the second half of your speech. I hope I wasn't snoring loud enough to wake anybody else up.
Please make it more brief next time.
You did make one statement that I liked. "The fact of the matter is, that the terrorists are to busy fighting the U.S, to strike us again." I would say that the fact of the matter is, they are striking you again, to the tune of untold millions of dollars, many, many young lives lost, increasing division of the nation and the loss of international credibility. and no end in sight. you are in a war of occupation for oil reserves.

Answer 8

The key word here is "WAR". At war, nobody is safe, not truly. There's nothing anybody can do to make it super-safe. It's just the way it is. You needn't have posted such a long question, what a waste of time.

Answer 9

The war on terror makes you so scared that you are willing to strip down at airports and give up your bank and medical files and your right to privacy on your own phone and computer. As they tell you that you are safe for doing that, you feel better. But that's about it.

Answer 10

I'll wait to answer when your question comes out in paperback.

We are safer...but not safe.