Global War on Terrorism: Its' Effect on the US Military - Research Proposal Example

Global War on Terrorism: Its Effect on the US Military-Research Proposal Part I: Tentative The proposed tentative topic for the dissertation is“Global War on Terrorism: Its Effect on the US Military”. This research paper focuses on a reflective exploration of the influence of the Global War on Terror (GWoT) on the overall operations and functions of the U.S. military and the proposed title of this research paper is “The Impact of Global War on Terror (GWoT) on the U.S. Military”. Part II: Research problem The military forces of the United States, which consist of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard, have a long history of maintaining the safety and security of the nation. Significantly, the United States Military Forces have withstood several challenges from across the border all through the history of the nation. The U.S. military, today, has become the most influential military body in international affairs and it possesses one of the largest militaries in the world in terms of number of personnel. The role of the U.S. military in the contemporary world of terrorism and nuclear threats has increased tremendously and the international community has great hope and trust in the ability of the U.S. military in countering the threats raised by the advocates of terrorism. In a reflective exploration of the historical development of the U.S. military in the recent years, it becomes lucid that the single most influential episode affecting the nature of the operations and functions of the U.S. military in the contemporary world has been launched by the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001. In other words, one of the most important influences on the nature of the operations and functions of the U.S. military in the recent years has been the Global War on Terror (otherwise known as the War on Terror or the War on Terrorism) which refers to the ongoing international military campaign against global terrorism. As the United States of America leads the Global War on Terror (GWoT), with the support of the United Kingdom and other NATO and non-NATO countries, the role of the U.S. military is essential in any strategies to counter terrorist developments in the world. Significantly, the Global War on Terrorism, which was formally launched in 2001 with the invasion of Afghanistan by the U.S.-led international forces, has influenced the nature of operations and functions of the U.S. military. Thus, the impact of Global War on Terror (GWoT) on the U.S. Military in the recent years offers a highly promising area of research in connection with History and Military Studies. Several notable researchers and authors in the field have studied the influence of the Global War on Terror (GWoT) on the U.S. Military and there are arguments in favor of as well as in opposition to the changes imposed on the U.S. military by the declaration of GWoT. The U.S. Military has been on the continuous process of changing its strategies ever since the World War II, through the Cold War period and to the turbulent 1990s and beyond. In spite of the nation’s unchallenged position as the world’s sole superpower in the period following Cold War, there have occurred several events which brought about vast changes in the entire system of working in the U.S. Military. As James W. Williams suggests, “on 11 September 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and pentagon using hijacked airliners instantly brought national focus on the new strategic realities. Aviation, along with the rest of the U.S. armed forces, became decisively engaged in what became called the Global War on Terror (GWoT).”1 Therefore, it is fundamental to comprehend that the September 11 terrorist attacks and the events thereafter, especially the Global War on Terror, has influenced the shaping of the U.S. Military in a special way. Ever since the September 11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. Military has been facing the special challenge of maintaining strategic balance while pursuing the Global War against terrorism. Significantly, the post-September 11 world has added certain well-defined missions to the national security agenda involving the U.S. Military, although it has imposed increased burden on the military forces. Rather than merely adding mission areas to the security agenda, the terrorist attacks against New York and Washington have expanded and reprioritized existing security agenda of the military forces. As a result, the Department of Defense (DoD) came up with the important Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Report which places new emphasis on the unique operational demands of the defense system of the nation. The QDR also “places high priority on the ability to conduct major combat operations today and on transforming the military services for future. While the QDR and recent military actions have put the focus clearly on homeland security, the global war on terrorism, and transformation, nothing has decreased the importance of the Army’s other pre-September 11 missions of peacekeeping, engagement, and deterrence.”2 Therefore, it is essential to investigate the impact of the Global War on Terror (GWoT) on the U.S. Military in order to determine whether the GWoT has influenced the existing security agenda of the military forces along with the Army’s other pre-September 11 missions of peacekeeping, engagement, and deterrence. This paper proposes to make a profound analysis of all these aspects to come up with findings on the impact of the Global War on Terror (GWoT) on the U.S. Military. My hypothesis for this research paper is that the Global War on Terror (GWoT) has incredibly influenced the existing security agenda of the military forces along with the Army’s other pre-September 11 missions of peacekeeping, engagement, and deterrence. It is indubitable that the role of the U.S. Military in international affairs has tremendously increased since the declaration of the Global War on Terror (GWoT), led by the United States with the support of the United Kingdom and other NATO and non-NATO countries. However, there is a really tough task ahead of the U.S. Military to be able to conduct major combat operations today and transform the military services for future. While the Global War on Terror has expanded and reprioritized existing security agenda of the military forces, it has immensely affected the Army’s pre-September 11 missions of peacekeeping, engagement, and deterrence. Significantly, the U.S. military operations across the globe in connection with the U.S.-initiated Global War on Terrorism have covered “a wide variety of combat and non-combat missions ranging from combating insurgents, to civil affairs and reconstruction operations, to training military forces of other nations in counternarcotics, counterterrorism, and counterinsurgency tactics.”3 However, these reprioritized operations and functions of the U.S. military have detrimentally affected the original security agenda of the military forces, including peace-keeping and homeland security. This paper makes a reflective investigation of all these factors in order to discover the impact of the U.S.-initiated Global War on Terror on the U.S. military operations and functions. The research questions undertaken in this research paper, there, incorporate those investigate the ultimate impact of Global War on Terror on the U.S. Military and they include: 1. What were the essential components of security agenda of the military forces prior to September 11 attacks and the declaration of the GWoT? 2. To what extent the declaration of the U.S.-initiated Global War on Terror has influenced the operations and functions of the U.S. Military? 3. What are the major areas of priority of the U.S. Military operations subsequent to the declaration of the GWoT? How far the focus of operations has changed since the September 11 attacks? 4. What are the essential components of the existing security agenda of the military forces and which are the areas of concern? Part III. Definition of Terms Global War on Terror (GWoT): The phrase used by former U.S. President George W. Bush and the prominent U.S. officials to refer to the U.S.-initiated Global War on Terror incorporating military, political, legal and ideological effort to counter the agencies of terrorism. QDR Report: Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Report of the Department of Defense (DoD) which places new emphasis on the unique operational demands of the defense system of the U.S. WMD: Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are those weapons that can cause great devastation and harm to people. COIN: Counterinsurgency (COIN) refers to an armed conflict against an insurgency from any external forces (here against the terrorists) CT: Counterterrorism (CT) refers to those tactics, techniques, strategies and actions against terrorism. HLS: Homeland Security (HLS) refers to the inner security of the nation and for this it is imperative that the nation is not threatened by external forces. UW: Unconventional Warfare (UW) is the opposite of conventional warfare and it has the power to shock the enemy and achieve victory. Part IV: Background The United States has been engaged in a very crucial battle against terrorism for the last 8-9 years and the global war on terrorism initiated by the nation has influenced the normal way of functioning and operation of the U.S. Military. Significantly, the Global War on Terror (GWoT) was declared by the U.S. Government at the rear of the al-Qaeda terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. It was soon after the al-Qaeda terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, on New York’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon, that the President declared a “war against terrorism of global reach.” Subsequently and repeatedly, he and other administration officials used the terms “global war on terrorism,” “war on global terrorism,” “war on terrorism,” “war on terror,” and “battle against international terrorism” in connection with the U.S military’s additional role as the safeguard against global terrorism. The “global war on terrorism,” complete with its acronym, GWoT, soon became the most often used term.”4 Significantly, GWoT has affected the nature of activity of the U.S. Military too. The mode of functioning of the U.S. Military forces has been tremendously affected by the heinous attacks of September 11, 2001 and the focus of action of the forces has shifted more globally ever since. The military operations of the U.S. army since the 9/11 attacks attained a global status and these operations were fully supported by the government and other bodies of power in the nation. According to the Committee on the Role of Naval Forces in the Global War on Terror of National Research Council (U.S.), “the GWoT involves multiple operations for the U.S. military, from combating terrorist threats to counter-proliferation to providing humanitarian assistance.” 5 The military operations following the 9/11 attacks targeted not just Al-Qaida but also other terrorist groups with international reach. Thus, GWoT included military actions of varied scope and scale in various countries of the world including Afghanistan, the Philippines, and Iraq. As it has been pointed out by researchers, “In a departure from the typically partisan divisions that had accompanied most of the U.S. military operations over the preceding decade, the president received strong and vocal bipartisan support in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and in support of his statements regarding his administration’s planned response… Thus, as a result of the 9/11 attacks, a ‘global war on terrorism’ (GWOT) was launched that targeted not just Al Qaeda but also other terrorist groups with global reach.”6 The large number of U.S military personnel and U.S Special Forces deployed abroad for military operations against global terrorism has, in fact, affected the stability of the U.S military. 7 Andrew Feickert discusses elaborately the various combat and non-combat missions that the U.S.-initiated Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) undertook in their military operations in Afghanistan, Africa, the Philippines, and Colombia. These anti-terrorist operations include “a wide variety of combat and non-combat missions ranging from combating insurgents, to civil affairs and reconstruction operations, to training military forces of other nations in counternarcotics, counterterrorism, and counterinsurgency tactics”8. It is estimated that in Afghanistan alone there are approximately 19,000 U.S. military personnel and a considerable number of other U.S Special Forces that seek to capture or kill Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders. Besides, the Afghan National Army (ANA) is offered training by the army units from the Florida National Guard’s 53rd Infantry Brigade. All this is sure to have affected the normal functioning of the U.S army before the nation’s declaration of war against global terrorism. There are many researchers who argue that the U.S Army’s concept of war is not very much suited to destroy organized global terrorism that makes use of advanced technology and novel strategies of terrorism. Robert M. Cassidy, in this respect, makes it clear that “although the history of U.S Army is replete with many years of experiences with non-traditional types of conflict, its culture, until now, had preferred a concept of war akin to its World War II approach to war. For example, the U.S. Army has consistently refused to seriously consider any type of war, except a European-style conventional war.” 9 The author concludes by stating that the U.S army failed to overcome the guerrilla war strategies in the Vietnam War as it was unable to follow any effective unconventional counterinsurgencies at the right time. In fact, it was the Vietnam Wars that revealed the weaknesses of the U.S Army to the global world and the terrorist strategies and upheavals by the Taliban terrorists and the al-Qa’ida networks clearly demonstrate that they have taken advantage of this flaw in the U.S Military. The current research needs to make a probe into the nature of war fought by the U.S military against global terrorism and conclusions regarding how effective are the U.S military’s strategies towards global terrorism may also be obtained. The event of September 11 The September 11 attack has been instrumental in America’s war against global terrorism. However, the nation had witnessed earlier strikes from the terrorists against the World Trade centre (1993), the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (1998), and the USS Cole (2000). The September 11 Attack, in fact, shocked the whole world as no one could believe that such a massive terrorist attack, resulting the destruction of World Trade Center’s twine towers was possible in the United States, which has been hailed as the world’s most powerful military and intelligence power. The devastating and noxious attack that killed thousands of people in the World Trade Center showed that even the United States is vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Later, it was identified that the terrorist violations of immigration laws constituted for this massive terrorist attack and Janice L. Kephart notices that there were “the immigration histories of 94 terrorists who operated in the United States between the early 1990s and 2004, including six of the September 11th hijackers”10. However, the September 11 incident prompted the international community to organize under the United States to fight against terrorists who possess weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and cause great threat to the global security. However, the United States’ claim for the right to engage in pre-emptive self-defense in other nations including Iraq and its “strategy of presenting the invasion of Iraq as a crucial part of the GWoT has backfired inasmuch as it has convinced many people that the GWoT is doing more harm than good”11. Soon after the September 11 attack, President Bush proclaimed that the United States aim at wiping out not only the al Qaeda’s global networks but all other terrorist upheavals globally. The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) published by the Department of Defence in September 2001 entrusted the U.S Military with “the threefold responsibilities of waging an offensive counterterrorism campaign overseas, shaping the long-term security environment abroad to reduce the threat of global terrorism, and supporting homeland security” and no doubt this additional responsibility of the U.S military has adversely affected its normal national security jobs12. Bruce Nardulli’s The Global War on Terrorism: An Early Look at Implications for the Army is a seminal work that addresses the major issues when the U.S. Armys top priority became its longstanding commitments towards the Global War on Terrorism. Summarizing the studies of RAND Arroyo Center researchers the author concludes that the U.S Army’s global war on terrorism has called for increased deployments, a broader range of capabilities, greater use of the transformation process to meet these goals, high demand for scarce skills, and a more flexible overseas basing structure. The U.S Army has a large amount of international commitments in such places as Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Sinai and it needs to employ large numbers of US army personnel to such terrorist prone areas as Afghanistan and Iraq. For the combat operations against the remnants of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan alone the army had to deploy more than 6,000 soldiers13. It has also been observed that the United States will have to depend heavily on its aircraft carriers and needs to spend a large amount of defense dollars for the purpose of fighting against global terrorism14. (p.iii) The article clearly demonstrates 12 possible combat and non-combat scenarios where the U.S Military have to be ready with the necessary types of combat and non-combat missions that aircraft carriers could undertake in the future; the scenarios included such combat scenarios as the China-Taiwan crisis, Pakistan coup attempt, Korea crisis, Crisis in Straits of Hormuz, Nigeria civil war non-combatant evacuation, Colombia insurgency, Myanmar civil war, and so on15. Similarly, it is mandatory that the U.S Military is equipped with sufficient aircraft carriers so as to face unforeseen crises. It is essential to have a thorough understanding of the operational environment of the U.S Military Forces with regard to its global war against terrorism. The U.S military forces need to maintain deployed forces (who operate away from their permanent locations such as its infantry battalion in Iraq), in-transit forces (who prepare themselves for deployment or redeployment in an operation), and Institutional Forces (who facilitates training and logistic facilities).16 Therefore, it is a great challenge for the Federal government to offer institutional training and professional military education for U.S. military forces in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). Another great threat faced by the U’S Military in its efforts to fight global terrorism is that it becomes a lucrative target of attack; for instance, the U.S military forces had been frequently targeted by the anti-NATO European terrorists or state sponsored terrorists during the 1970s to 1990s. The accessibility of the terrorists of the geographic area makes easier such targeting of the U.S military forces and this poses a great threat to the life and security of U.S anti-terrorist forces in foreign nations. Feickert (2005), in this respect, argue that U.S Military operations with regard to international terrorism have been successful in suppressing terrorist upheavals. The U.S Military have employed different strategies in various countries to fight against global terrorism; the NATO have envisioned specific operations in Afghanistan, counterdrug operations in Afghanistan, a long-term strategy for Africa, and developments in Colombia and the Philippines and all of these have met with certain degree of success.17 Belasco (2009), in this respect, observes that on June 24, 2009, “Congress has approved a total of about $944 billion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).18 The current research needs to deal with these immense cost that the nation has spent on fighting global terrorism and how this has effected the U.S military and the U.S economy. The foreign policy of United States have been instrumental in offering the U.S Military a greater global responsibility-that of safeguarding the global community against terrorism. In fact, the “U.S. policy toward international terrorism contains a significant military component, reflected in current U.S. operations in Afghanistan and (on a smaller scale) the Philippines and in planned deployments of U.S. forces to Yemen and the former Soviet republic of Georgia”19 It was President George Bush who had offered wiliness to offer military aid to any nations that seeks to put an end to terrorism and terrorist related activities. Paul Rogers (2008) makes clear the conducive environment that contributed to the United States’ growth as a global leader against terrorism. The early years of Bush administration was strong is such areas as the nation’s foreign policy and military posture and by rapidly responding to the activities of the al-Qaida movement and the Taliban regime and to the Saddam Hussein regime, the United States rose to be the global leader 20. James H. Lebovic (2007) observes that it was the September 11 incident provoked President Bush to assert that “traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents; whose so-called soldiers seek martyrdom in death and whose most potent protection is statelessness.”21 Therefore, it is imperative that the proposed research deal with the foreign policy of then Federal government and identify its effect on the U.S military. However, there are many who believe that the United States interventions are against international laws and that “the US war on terror may further aggravate internal tensions, ethnic rivalries, existing social problems, etc” 22 the proposed research has the scope and depth to answer this view. There are also arguments such as put forward by Sinkler and Coon that the U.S Army finds it difficult to recruit sufficient army personnel to fight the global war on terror and beyond 23 and the proposed research on the global war on terrorism’s effect on the U.S military will throw light on this aspect too. Part V: Research Methods A qualitative approach to research is employed for the purpose of the study. The research methods will consist of comparing and contrasting primary and secondary sources. The research paper tries to draw conclusions from the vast number of literature reviewed on the chosen topic. Possible case studies and interviews on the topic can also be analysed to come to conclusions on the topic. Bruce Nardulli’s The Global War on Terrorism: An Early Look at Implications for the Army will be used as the foundation text of the research. The research will also draw upon U.S Military reports as well as the Federal government’s official documents on its global war against terrorism. In short, the research seeks to derive its conclusions from the discussion and analysis of the literature reviewed and it also aims at offering suggestions and recommendations based on the findings of the study. Part V1: Research Limitations The main limitation of this research project is that not much of quantitative data is available on the topic. Similarly, the research needs to depend heavily on secondary resources. The research is restricted to the impacts of America’s global war on terrorism on its military force and does not focus very much on policy issues. Similarly, the recommendations and suggestions of the study will also be limited to the findings of the study. Working Bibliography: Bacevich, A. J. (2007). The long war: a new history of U.S. national security policy since World War II. Columbia University Press. Belasco Amy. The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11. Congressional Research Service, 2009 Bellamy J. Alex. Security and the war on terror. Taylor & Francis, 2008. Cassidy M. Robert, Counterinsurgency and the global war on terror: military culture and irregular war. Praeger Security International Series. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006 Crane, Conrad C. Facing the Hydra: Maintaining Strategic Balance While Pursuing a Global War against Terrorism. DIANE Publishing. P. 1. Donohue, Laura K. (2008). The cost of counterterrorism: power, politics, and liberty. New York: Cambridge University Press,. Feickert, Andrew. U.S. Military operations in the Global War on Terrorism: Afghanistan, Africa, the Philippines, and Colombia. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 2005. Feickert, Andrew. (2005). “U.S. Military Operations in the Global War on Terrorism: Afghanistan, Africa, the Philippines, and Colombia.” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32758.pdf (accessed July 21, 2010). Gordon John IV, Wilson A. Peter, Birkler John, Boraz Steven and Lee T. Gordon. Leveraging America’s Aircraft Carrier Capabilities. National defence Research Institute, 1956. Kelly, John D., Jauregui, Beatrice., and Mitchell, Sean T. Anthropology and Global Counterinsurgency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2010. Kilcullen, David. (2010). Counterinsurgency. New York: Oxford University Press US. Koechler Hans. The War on Terror, its Impact on the Sovereignty of States, and its Implications for Human Rights and Civil Liberties. Lecture delivered at the International Ecumenical Conference on Terrorism in a Globalized World. Manila, 2002 Larson, Eric Victor., and Savych, Bogdan. (2005). American public support for U.S. military operations from Mogadishu to Baghdad. Rand Corporation. P. 92. Lebovic H. James. Deterring International Terrorism and Rogue States: US National Security Policy After 9/11. London and New York Taylor & Francis, Routledge, 2007 Mahajan, Rahul. (2007). The New Crusade; Americas War on Terrorism. Aakar Books. Nardulli Bruce. The Global War. Pittsburgh: RAND publication, 2003. National Research Council (U.S.). (2007). “Role of naval forces in the global war on terror: abbreviated version.” Committee on the Role of Naval Forces in the Global War on Terror. National Academies Press. P. 2. Perl Raphael. Terrorism, the Future, and U.S. Foreign Policy. Issue Brief for Congress, 2003 Presbey, Gail M. (2007). Philosophical Perspectives on the "War on Terrorism." Rodopi. Rogers Paul. Global Security and the War On Terror: Elite Power and the Illusion of Control. London and New York: Taylor & Francis, Routledge, 2008 Record, Jeffrey. (2003). “Bounding the Global War on Terrorism.” P. 1. http://www.rbvincent.net/pdf.files/bounding.pdf (accessed July 21, 2010). Sinkler Alan Robert. U.S. Army recruiting for the Global War on Terror and beyond. U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania Towell, Pat., and Daggett, Stephen. (2010). FY2010 Defense Authorization and Appropriations: Including Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, and The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11. The Capitol Net Inc. US Army TRADOC. TRADOC G2 Handbook No. 1. “A Military Guide to Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century.” Kansas http://fas.org/irp/threat/terrorism/guide.pdf (accessed15 August 2007). Williams, James W. (2005). A History of Army Aviation: From Its Beginnings to the War on Terror. Universe. P. 275. Yates, Larry. Field Artillery in Military Operations Other Than War: An Overview of the US Experience. DIANE Publishing. Read More