The American War on Terror in Afghanistan - Essay Example

 The American War on Terror in Afghanistan Introduction America’s war on terror has raised many concerns in America about the outcome of it. US have already opened two war fronts; one in Iraq and another in Afghanistan. Another war front is on card in Iran. On the other hand, American economy is on the verge of destruction because of the current global financial crisis and the huge expenditure America suffers because of war on terror. Many people are of the view that America cannot sustain its war on terror in this manner for a longer period and in all the probabilities it might be forced to cease the war on terror before achieving the objectives. Moreover, many others believe that America should reassess its strategy from a realistic point of view to extricate itself from the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq to concentrate on the wider aspects of war on terrorism. Now the question is how a country can attack another country without convincing reasons? Moreover, why the rest of the world keeping silence even when two sovereign states attacked by a superpower? How the idealism of spreading democracy with the help of war can be justified? Is it necessary for America to take more pragmatic approach in fighting against terrorism? This paper tries to find answers to above question with the help of analysis of war on terror both in Iraq and Afghanistan in a realistic point of view. War on terror America’s war on terror strategies lack consistency and a proper shape. While it engages in an all out attack in Iraq, it uses targeted attacks in specific areas in Afghanistan. The reasons cited for attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan are entirely different. In Iraq America accused that the president Saddam itself is leading the terrorist networks whereas in Afghanistan they had no such worries. In Afghanistan, America is getting support from the administration in their efforts to eliminate the Taliban led terrorist groups. Mearsheimer (2005) has argued that Hans Joachim Morgenthau, one of the most important political thinkers of the 20th century and one of the great realist thinkers of all time has opposed the Vietnam War and he would have opposed the current war on terror also on same grounds. Mearsheimer has also mentioned that the dispute about whether to go to war in Iraq was between two competing theories of international politics: realism and the neo-conservatism that underpins the Bush doctrine (Mearsheimer). Many people now suspect that President Bush has certain hidden agendas in conducting the war on terror. Realism deals with the true facts whereas neo-conservatism is adamant on certain policies. When we analyze the war on terror, both in Iraq and Afghanistan it is evident that the reasons cited were not real. President Bush accused that Iraq was possessing weapons of mass destruction and President Saddam is one of the core elements of the evil forces. Even after the execution of Saddam, America is still fighting in Iraq and no peace is still there even though an elected government is in power. Moreover, America failed to find out any chemical or nuclear weapons in Iraq which again broke the backbone of America’s arguments. In Afghanistan also the case is not much different. America is searching in darkness for Taliban terrorists. Lots of civilian causalities are also reported from both Iraq and Afghanistan. Neo conservatives believe that United States have a golden opportunity at present to rule the world because of the destruction of Soviet Union. They think that nobody is there at present to question the supremacy of US on global issues. Moreover, they are of the view that the current war on terror will be a lesson for other countries like Iran and North Korea. (The two remaining countries in the list of three “axis of evils” as described by former president Bush; Iraq was the third country). George Bush thought that the current war on terror will prevent both North Korea and Iran form their effort to achieve nuclear power. But the real fact is that both Iran and North Korea are still going ahead with their efforts to acquire nuclear power and challenging the supremacy of US at present. The Bush doctrine of spreading democracy through wars in middle east and Afghanistan like radical Muslim dominated countries have failed miserably which is evident from the fact that the war on terror is still going on with the end is not on cards even at least in the near future. Iran's foreign minister has recently said that former US President George W. Bush's so-called war on terror has actually served as a guise for training terrorists rather than destroying the terrorists (Iran: US war on terror, plot to train terrorists) Smith (2010) has pointed out that a group of "realist" scholars and activists have written President Obama urging him to reconsider America's commitment in Afghanistan whereas leading conservative and neo-conservative thinkers backing a more muscular American presence in Afghanistan (Smith). It is evident that the American public is still confused about the tactics adopted in war on terror. Neo-conservatives think that the war on terror should be strengthened whereas realists believe that another Vietnam would be the end result of current war on terror and the strategies need to be reevaluated. Steve Inskeep (2010) has argued that in a desperate drive to catch suspected terrorists before they can strike, the United States is using torture and other harsh interrogation techniques. But that can often lead to more problems, including wild goose chases due to unreliable information generated under duress (Inskeep). Moreover Shah (2007) has pointed out that attack on subsequent bombing of Afghanistan to attack Osama Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban, resulted in around 3,500 civilian deaths, as of December 2001(Shah). The above facts clearly show that the war on terror has lost its direction. Most of the attacks intended upon the terrorists is resulted in the killing and torture of innocent people. Conclusions It is not wise for US to continue its war on terror in its present form. It is a fact that the terrorists need to be punished, but it should not be done at the expense of innocent people. Attacking of a sovereign state without concrete reasons cannot be justified under any circumstances. America should redefine its strategies in a more pragmatic way to counter the terrorism in an effective manner. Democracy is a good concept compared to many other forms of government; but the spreading of democracy through wars is totally against the core concepts of democratic principles. Works Cited 1. Inskeep, Steve. 2010. “The Drawbacks of Fighting Terrorism with Torture”. 03 March 2010. 2. “Iran: US War on Terror, Plot to Train Terrorists”.2010. 03 March 2010. 3. Mearsheimer, John J. 2005. “Hans Morgenthau and the Iraq War: Realism Versus Neo-conservatism”. 03 March 2010. 4. Shah, Anup. 2007. “War on Terror.” Global Issues. 03 Mar 2010. 5. Smith, Ben.2009. Realists Warn on Afghan War. 03 March 2010.   Read More