The War on Terrorism - Essay Example

Order#124776 May 13, 2006 The War on Terrorism The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 changed the way the U.S. government dealt with security almost overnight. A few days later U.S. president, George W. Bush, declared that the U.S. would use whatever force necessary against those connected with the bombings. Since the war on terrorism was launched, the U.S. has taken lengthy measures both at home and abroad to find and apprehend anyone who might be a terrorist. The government has also increased Homeland Security by using surveillance techniques that were previously considered an invasion of privacy. President Bush’s war on terrorism is counterproductive because it seems that the cost of freedom from terror is the freedom of privacy, It is questionable as to what the war on terrorism actually is. The Encyclopedia Britannica (n.d.) defined war as, “A conflict among political groups involving hostilities of considerable duration and magnitude” (War). Bush stated that war was declared on terrorism, but no specific countries or political groups were actually named in the declaration. The fact there were no specific guidelines set at the declaration of war has lead many to wonder if Bush’s war on terror is even legal. Now, in 2006, Bush’s continuing campaign leads many to wonder is this war on terrorism is to be a repeat of the Vietnam War. U.S. President Bush has utilized a series of legal loopholes and political strategies to keep a legally questionable war and freedom infringing policies going for almost 5 years. Lovinger and Scott (n.d.) stated that Bush’s war is illegal because: Congresss war resolution was an unconstitutional delegation of power Bombing communities and hospitals violates international and U.S. law Bush refused to seek a peaceful solution which was contrary to the U.N. Charter U.S. treaty renounces war as an instrument of national policy (Why Bush’s War is Illegal, n. pag). If so many aspects of Bush’s war on terrorism are illegal, how does he get away with it? Even though the Bush administration refers to its acts as part of the War on Terrorism, the campaign is not technically a war, but rather a Use of Force Resolution. The key difference in these two terms is the president’s ability to extend military force. In an article from Slate, Lithwick (2001) described the difference as, “While the wide-open wording of the joint resolution appears to give congressional approval to any act of war undertaken by President Bush, it contains several important checks on his powers” (What Sort of War, n. pag.). These checks were put in place to prevent a repeat of the Vietnam War by requiring the U.S. President to confer with Congress when implementing any new military actions. Before going into the details describing any negative impacts of the War on Terror, it is important to note that if there were no positive aspects, the U.S. would not have any support. Since the start of the War, military forces were able to apprehend the President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, in 2003. Hussein was an authoritarian that used his political power and connections to oppress Iraqi citizens through acts of war and terror. The fact that Hussein had worked with the U.S. in the past, along with his strong political influence and publicly known distaste for the U.S., made Hussein a threatening power that had to be overthrown. Even with Hussein captured, the war could not end because he did have many that supported him for opposing the U.S., and were ready to take his place when he was apprehended. With the current threat from Osama Bin-Laden and his followers of the Al-Qaeda, one wonders if this War on Terror will ever end. In 1998, Bin Laden declared Jihad, or Holy War, against the U.S. In February 1998, Bin Laden issued an edict stating that the U.S.’s occupation in the Islamic countries was an act of war on God. Bin Laden stated that the killing of Americans in order to liberate Jerusalem and Mecca, Jihad, was the individual duty of every Muslim “in accordance with the words of Almighty God” (Jihad Is An, n. pag.). Although Bin Laden’s followers are relatively few when compared to the forces of the U.N., the terrorists truly believe that their cause is a holy one. It would be unwise for the U.N. to let these forces go unchecked; therefore, the war will continue until either the terrorist forces or the U.S. military are completely extracted from the Islamic lands. Aside from the global actions taken by the U.S. government to fight terrorism, there have been many changes of policy inside the U.S. as well. In 2003, the Department of Homeland Security was formed to coordinate security efforts across the nation. This development brought with it both positive and negative results. On one hand, stricter security measures taken on airlines and heightened security at high profile events lessens the chances for future attacks on American soil. On the other hand, less desirable measures such as the unwarranted collection of private information and ethnic profiling have led to a higher social tension amongst U.S. citizens. One example of the invasive nature of the government’s actions is the NSA’S Eavesdropping Program. In an article from Find Law, Kellman (2006) described the government’s collection of millions of customer’s phone call records from the companies of AT&T Corp., Verizon Communications Inc., and BellSouth Corp. telephone companies (Lawmakers Question Government, n. pag.). It is questionable as to how the collection of so many records could aid the government in its movement against terror. The NSA was apparently wanting to track any phone calls made that could be terrorist related, but the excessiveness of their actions seems to be bordering on an unconstitutional abuse of power by violating U.S. citizen’s rights to privacy. There has been another revival of unpleasant practices by the U.S. government known as profiling. Profiling is the act of associating certain behaviors to people with certain physical characteristics. This was first seen when President Ronald Reagan launched his campaign known as the War on Drugs. During this campaign, police would pull over and question citizens who fit the profile that usually included the color of their skin and the quality of the vehicle they drove. In Bush’s War on Terrorism, people of the Muslim faith or that are of Islamic decent have been subjected to the unfounded interrogations based on their physical attributes. Another shortcoming of ethnic profiling is the effect that precipitates outward to the general population. By profiling citizens, negative stereotypes were focused on by officials and picked up on by other citizens that witnessed the behaviors. The citizens of Islamic background not only faced prejudice from law enforcement, but also from their fellow citizens. Because of their religious beliefs and cultural background, these citizens were automatically assumed to have terrorist connections. It is important to remember that the actions of the terrorists on September 11, 2001 did not reflect the beliefs of the entire Muslim people, but only a small group of extremists. . There are many who feel that the war on terrorism will fail. Terrorism is not a person or a place that can be focused on. Instead, terrorism is a trait can be harbored in anyone, no matter what their ethnic or religious background is. Since the War on Terrorism began, the number of attacks from terrorist groups has considerably grown, along with the number of Jihad followers. An article from Free Republic (2004) described the Islamic terrorist as, “More numerous, more successful in attracting scores of fresh (and mostly very young) recruits, more widely spread, and generally more dangerous today than in the immediate aftermath of terrorist attacks” (Why is the, n. pag.). It could be a fair assumption that the growing number of terrorists reflects the decrease of the effectiveness of the U.S.’s presence in the Middle East. Support for the War on Terrorism seems to be wavering; both from other countries and from members of the U.S. Incidents where civilians were bombed unnecessarily dealt a heavy blow to the U.S.’s public image. Islamic natives that witnessed innocents being mowed down by the military forces did not see the U.S. as a liberating force, but as a force wanting to take control of their lands. The negativity is added to by the implications of the U.S. mistreatment of Islamic prisoners in detainment centers. In 2004, an FBI agent was sent under cover to the detainment center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to investigate the allegations. The agent reported that, “Prisoners [were[ being shackled to the floor without food or water in extreme temperatures for up to 24 hours at a stretch” (CNN Tours Gitmo, n. pag.). Although the U.S. maintains that prisoners are not mistreated, the implications of mistreatment continue to arise from both ex-captives and former service members, which are harmful to the global war on terror. Support for the war within the U.S. is faltering as well. As the Department of Homeland Security continues to implement new policies to track down terrorist, more and more citizens question the ethics of invading their privacy. When the NSA acquired mass amounts of phone records, it was questioned why the privacy of so many Americans was invaded. It would seem more logical and efficient to extract only the records of people suspected of having terrorist connections, but to do that the government would have to use profiling methods. Although profiling is still used as a tool by government officials, it has been banned in many parts of the country, being deemed as unethical. After examining the different aspects, it is easy to see the conundrum that the War on Terror presents. The war has both positive and negative effects, not unlike a double-edged sword. While defending the U.S. and the world from terrorists, Iraq was freed from the terrorist Hussein. Since Hussein’s capture though, extended military occupation in the Middle East has left the U.S. with an image as being a different dictating presence. The U.S. continues to drive insurgents out of Islamic villages in order to bring democracy to Islam, but the killing of innocent civilians has turned away much of the Islamic support that the U.S. originally held. The War on Terrorism within the U.S. has thus far prevented any further attacks from terrorists, but the invasive actions of Homeland Security leave many citizens to question whether their government is inadvertently becoming a terrorist power. As the war continues, terrorists grow in numbers and location and support for the U.S. weakens. Even if the War on Terror is counterproductive by bringing as much, if not more, negative actions as positive, one thing is clear. It is too late to call it off now. With the anger that the U.S. has caused Islamic terrorist, it would be a grave folly to suddenly withdrawal and leave such a dangerous element unchecked. At this point, there is no ending point in the war as long as terrorist parties exist. The U.S. will continue to occupy the Middle East looking for terrorist leaders, which will be replaced as soon as they are captured. In the U.S., policies will continue being implemented that invade the privacy of millions of citizens until no threat of terrorism remains. With terrorism as the enemy instead of an actual entity, there will always be opposing forces. Works Cited CNN tours Gitmo prison camp: Military rules prevent crew from getting full picture (2005). World News. Retrieved on May 14, 2006 from Jihad Is An Individual Duty (n.d.). Jihad, Fatwas, and Osama Bin Laden. Retrieved on May 14, 2006 from Kellman, Laurie (2006).Lawmakers question government collection of phone call records; Bush says privacy of Americans is protected. FindLaw. Retrieved on May 12, 2006 from Lithwick, Dahlia (2001), What Sort of War Did the U.S. Declare? Slate. Retrieved on May 13, 2006 from Lovinger, Paul, Scott, Harry (n.d.). Why Bushs War Is Illegal War and Law League. Retrieved on May 13, 2006 from War (n.d.). Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Retrieved on May 13, 2006 from Read More