U.S. Policy and the War on Terror: An Ineffective Strategy
Since 9/11 the U.S. government has pursued a policy of combating terrorism with all of its resources (intelligence, technology, military, economic sanctions, etc.). However, the question remains, nearly a decade and a half later, with terror attacks occurring more and more frequently around the world, whether the U.S. has been effective in its countering of terrorism. According to various studies, it can be shown how far from actually eradicating terrorism, the policies of the U.S. government have actually helped to foster the spread of terrorism. Now, as Russia steps into the Middle East to fight ISIS at the request of Syria, a disinformation campaign in the West has been put into practice by the mainstream media to show how Russia and Syria are hurting the war against terrorism, when the reality is that Russia has been far more effective in hurting ISIS and affiliated terrorists in mere months than the U.S. has been over the course of years. This paper will show how and why the U.S. government policy since 9/11 has not been very effective in countering terrorism.
To understand the U.S. government's policy and how and why it has been ineffective so far in the fight against terrorism, it is necessary to understand the history of the actors involved. The policy writers within the U.S. government have had their own motivations for waging an ineffectual war on terrorism (or for waging an unending war, which is good for the business of the military-industrial complex as well as for the destabilization of Middle Eastern regimes that oppose Western corporate interests, such as the laying of oil and gas pipelines).[footnoteRef:1] In other words, "terrorism" provides a pretext for the policy writers even as that terrorism actually exists and is fostered by aspects of the policy (such as random bombings of Middle Eastern hospitals and weddings, drone strikes, disappearances, the arrest of diplomats, etc.).[footnoteRef:2] That ISIS has grown out of al-Qaeda, which grew out of the mujahedeen, which was supported by the U.S. to fight the Soviets is a mere matter of record.[footnoteRef:3] Understanding how it has been the policy of the U.S. to use the war on terror as an excuse to expand its own hegemonic interests in the Middle East is needed to see why the policy of "countering terrorism" has been so ineffective: it was never intended to be effective -- not in the way that the public has been lead to believe. [1: Pepe Escobar, "Syria: Ultimate Pipelineistan War." Information Clearing House, 9 Dec 2015. Web. 12 Dec 2015.] [2: Tyler Durden, "U.S. Bombs Afghanistan Hospital, Kills At Least 9 Doctors and 3 Children, Calls it 'Collateral Damage'." Zero Hedge, 3 Dec 2015. Web. 12 Dec 2015.] [3: William Engdahl, "What Stinks in Saudi Ain't the Camel Dung." Information Clearing House, 11 Dec 2015. Web. 12 Dec 2015.]
As Kayhan Barzegar notes, the "concept of terrorism" has been manipulated and used by policy writers to serve as a cover motive for real geopolitical aims.[footnoteRef:4] The War on Terrorism was given full-fledged support and encouragement on 20 September 2001 by leading members of The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), William Kristol and Richard Perle among many others of the so-called "neo-conservative" alliance, when they signed a letter to G. W. Bush which called for a "war on international terrorism."[footnoteRef:5] Pat Buchanan, one of the few political voices to warn against such an aim, criticized PNAC as a "cabal of intellectuals" out to revolutionize America.[footnoteRef:6] Kristol would later set his sights on eliminating oppositional voices, such as Buchanan and Ron Paul, admitting in 2012 at B'nai Jeshurun synagogue that he had been "encouraged" when Buchanan had been marginalized in the Presidential Elections and would be "happy" if Ron Paul were to "go." "[footnoteRef:7] So while on the face of it, the War on Terrorism is a necessary battle against al-Qaeda and affiliates (ISIS, etc.); underneath, it is a political ruse -- a gambit formulated by a highly-motivated group of Washington insiders and foisted on the American people through the strong arm of mainstream media. This paper will describe what the War on Terrorism is and what it is not. [4: Kayhan Barzegar, "The Terror Plot, An Ideological War for Geopolitical Interests," Iran Review, 24 Oct 2011. Web. 12 Dec 2015. ] [5: John Davis. Presidential Policies and the Road to the Second Iraq War. (VT: Ashgate, 2006), 51. ] [6: Ibid, 52.] [7: Pat Buchanan, "How Bill Kristol Purged the Arabists." Anti-War.com,...
U.S. Approach to Terrorism U.S Approach to Terrorism Post 2001 The incidence of September 11, 2001 led to an anti-terrorism campaign by the government of U.S. And was called the war or terror. Since 2001, U.S. government has taken several steps to maintain security and counter terrorism by implementing certain strategies at national and international level. These approaches and steps, whether useful or not have been discussed in this paper. President Bush's Justifications
Counter-Terrorism and Social Media: Freedom vs. Security The United States prides itself to being the most democratic nation of the world, with the highest respect for the human being, for its values, norms, and dreams. At the same time, before 9/11, it was also considered to be one of the safest nations of the world. The attacks on the World Trade Center towers, in particular pointed out that there are gaps
U.S. National Strategy What three United States national interests do you think will be at great risk over the next five years? Describe those interests and identify which instruments of national power can be leveraged to protect or advance those national interests and how those instruments can be used. As President Obama stated in his addresses to Congress in February 2009, the most important problem that the country faced was the economy,
On November 8, 2001, the U.S. Senate passed several new conditions before direct 'military-to-military relations can be restored with Indonesia including the punishment of the individuals who murdered three humanitarian aid workers in West Timor, establishing a civilian audit of armed forces expenditures, and granting humanitarian workers access to Aceh, West Timor, West Papua, and the Moluccas." Following are two very recent bills and rulings by the U.S. Congress concerning
U.S. President Barack Obama made an announcement to the nation that the Al Qaeda top leader Osama bin Laden had been killed by the U.S. special forces. He said that earlier that day, he had ordered a an elite military team to go deep into Pakistan and kill the mastermind of the September 11 terrorist attacks; attacks that shocked the nation and the world alike. In the course of
The left wing will considered the beggar to be at par with others on moral grounds, and will therefore demand the access of the beggar towards loans and welfare scheme. The right wing will condemn the free access of the beggar towards economic reforms, and will doubt that if access to these economic provisions will further involve the participation of the beggar into bad social habits. According to left
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now