Policy Analysi paper

War on Terror

Student’s Name

The Instructor’s Name

Course Title

Due Date

Faculty Name

War on Terror

Policy Issue and Title

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the United States of America moved swiftly to declare total war against terror. “War on terror” is the name they labelled the policy. In their efforts of executing their policy, the U.S invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, imprisoning numerous people the country’s intelligence community labelled “enemy combatants” (Duffy, 2005). The United States never stopped there; they carried out drone strikes in numerous countries across the world, conducted a massive campaign of electronic surveillance both at home and abroad, and also targeted assassinations in a number of countries that they considered dangerous. All these actions were conducted with the aim of not only detecting or eliminating terrorists, but also to prevent the occurrence of any potential deliberate terrorist attacks on U.S soil. Simply put, the actions were designed to deliver victory on the terrorism war by eliminating or thwarting existing terrorist organizations. However, different stakeholders have voiced their opinion and dissent for the U.S policy of war on terror.

Context and Importance of the Issue

The Foreign policy of the United States of America never adequately addressed the terrorism war from all fronts. The policy has been massively one-sided. The question of continual terrorist recruitment still lingers, even after the apparent successful implementation of the policy which ultimately delivered justice to Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. In fact the al Qaeda affiliates have only expanded their presence since the early 2000s (The Evolution of Terrorism since 9/11, 2011). The people against attacks on countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan argue that there is another way of defeating terrorism. This category of stakeholders believe that the government should focus on ways of making it difficult a task for any terrorist organization or movement to recruit new followers. Eventually, this will serve to marginalize the radical persons in society where they were trying to grow. There was much talk surrounding the desire by the U.S government to do the same immediately after the September 2001 attacks. This was characterized by the commissioning of a task force report by the State Department on public diplomacy geared toward the Islamic/Arab world. Needless to say, many experts provided their advice on how the nation could dilute Osama bin Laden’s message and subsequently build the nation’s broken image in that part of the globe.

Looking back, one has to ask themselves whether the United States has acted in manners that would serve to reduce the appeal of the Jihadi factions. With the exception of countries like Iraq and Jordan where the terrorist groups conducted themselves in ways that significantly reduced their appeal to potential recruits, it is difficult to say the country has succeeded on that front. Has the U.S government tweaked its policies to make it difficult for a jihadi leader to convince young members of the society to join his mission? The answer is a straight no.

When bin Laden launched the al Qaeda and commenced his terrorism activities targeting the U.S.A, he put forward three grievances; first, he stated that the West especially the U.S was constantly interfering in the affairs of the Islamic world. That particular accusation included America’s sanctions against Iraq that directly led to the death of several Iraqi nationals, along with the alleged exploitative activities of the U.S with regard to the Mideast oil. Osama also accused the nation of establishing illegitimate and corrupt dictatorship regimes in places such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. In fact, bin Laden particularly mentioned the thousands of U.S military troops that were stationed in Saudi Arabia immediately after the Gulf War of 1991. Third, Osama blamed the U.S for their actions of providing unconditional support to Israel and consequently ignoring the harsh treatment accorded to the Palestine subjects under the control of Israel.

Ever since those attacks, the jihadi narrative has constantly been defined by these charges. The United States has not behaved in any manner that is geared towards making their actions appear correct or vindicate the negative side of Osama’s charges. While the “War on Terror” policy is an issue that is supposed to protect the U.S citizens against foreign terrorist attacks, I am opposed to the manner in which the U.S has handled the whole issue.

Rationale and Justification

The U.S Continues to Use Military Force in the Arab/Islamic Regions

The U.S invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq in their bid to tackle to terrorism after the /11 attacks. This was despite the fact that unlike Afghanistan, Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks (Walt, 2013). Every war resulted in long and incompetently executed occupations that resulted in the death of several local inhabitants. In as much as the U.S were acting in good will and in the interests of the locals of these countries, we cannot rule out the fact that their military actions served to reinforce the idea that the U.S has a high affinity for interfering in the affairs of Islamic states. The war on terror gave birth to the Pakistan and Yemen drone strikes, the Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib abuses and hatred towards Muslims by U.S politicians and pundits alike (Esposito, n.d).

The U.S Continues to Prop Up Arab Dictatorships

It appears that the U.S has consistently supported the idea of true freedom agendas. Even though the U.S did eventually pull out its troops from Iraq and Saudi Arabia, their presence in the Persian Gulf is still massive. Despite palpable reasons to believe that Hamid Karzai’s government was elected fraudulently, the U.S.A continued to back him throughout his endemically corrupt tenure.

Course of Action

My position on the war on terror is that the United States of America has been conducting an immensely one-sided campaign against terrorist groups like al Qaeda. The U.S has not done any significant thing in countering the narratives used by anti-U.S supporters in rallying support. In my point of view the U.S should;

1. Forge stronger international relationships, especially with the governments of the countries that they invaded or plan to invade in their anti-terrorist activities. The idea of invading a country should not be part of the relationships. This way, the locals of such countries would feel that the U.S is more of a friend to them than an enemy. Subsequently, it will not be easy for the jihadi leaders to recruit them into terrorist groups.

2. Only offer rational support to countries in any global issue. The idea of offering unconditional support to Israel without considering the Israelis’ treatment of the Palestines’ was wrong. This is majorly the responsibility of the U.S policymakers and the Congress at large. Offering unconditional support to certain countries would only serve to worsen the already bad image that the U.S has.

Argumentation and Evidence

The UMD Global Terrorism statistics show that since President Bush’s declaration of “War on Terror”, the terrorist attacks have increased multifold across the world; from 2001’s 1882 to 2014’s 16818 (Terrorist attacks increased 9 times since 'War on Terror' declaration, 2015). I am not implying that the U.S should have laid back after the 9/11 attacks so as to appease bin Laden or stop supporting Israel completely. Rather, it is my point of view that the United States of America should focus on implementing a more inclusive approach in place of their one-sided approach in fighting terrorists. The invasion of countries like Iraq that were never partisan to the 9/11 attacks should never happen again. The country ought to align their foreign policy with that of relevant stakeholders so as to avoid leaving behind the impression of a superpower meddling in the affairs of a smaller country without justifiable cause.

Closing Remarks

The one-sided approach to “War on Terror” has served to make more enemies than friends for the U.S as a country. The number of terrorist attacks since 9/11 has increased tremendously, and the same continues to rise. It is high time that the U.S dropped their invasive actions against innocent countries and align their foreign policy with regard to the fight against terrorism with that of other nations so as to minimize spill-over effects such as the killing of innocent civilians through drone strikes.

Reference List