Is War Against Terrorism Moral And Has It Done Things Better Or Worse - Essay Example

IS WAR AGAINST TERRORISM MORAL AND HAS IT DONE THINGS BETTER OR WORSE? The War on Terror started after the terrorists attacked the US motherland on September 11th, 2001 whereby they blew up the World Trade Center as well as crashed planes into the Pentagon. This War on Terror was indeed an attack on all the forces, which had hatred in their minds and beliefs for the United States. US launched its terror retaliation activities with its allies United Kingdom, Australia and Spain as well as a number of other nations so as to combat Osama bin Laden and his associates which according to US sources, were scattered all over the planet. [Gareau, 2004] The Christians of not only the United States but also from other regions of the world stood up as they thought that these attacks were being targeted towards them. They started to believe that another World War was just there for the taking. War on Terrorism from the American standpoint tried its best to counter the forces, which were rallying up their activities against US and the Christians in particular. It looked at building confidence boosting measures with its allies so as to help curb the rising atrocities in different Christian communities of the world as well as the Jew settlements. US also tried its hand at making new friends in the form of Pakistan, India and the like in the South Asian region so that the most wanted terrorists could be caught up from these very lands. It also attacked Afghanistan within six months of the attacks on US and fastened its search operations in the country for the finding of Osama bin Laden and his accomplices. The Christians the world over were in a state of bother and tension so as to find out the real reason why the world had stood up against them and were hell bent upon destroying them. It would not be wrong to state at this point that Christians all over the world were vocal and carried out large processions as to encourage the US government and its allies to take steps to counter these very attacks. A number of wars and fights started in the wake of War on Terrorism and it sparked off a number of controversies as to the real reasons for starting the same on countries like Afghanistan and Iraq (which US attacked later in the wake of War on Terrorism) [Rich, 2003]. People mostly from these very lands stood up in unison against these attacks and demanded proof of the rationale behind doing the same. America, the super power that it is, sent its military inspectors in the search of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), which were thought to be hidden not only in Afghanistan but also in Iraq and that too in huge sums. Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was changed as a result of massive bombardment on the country and hence a new government under the guidance of United States was set up. The same is the case in Afghanistan where a government under the leadership of Hamid Karzai is in place, which is totally backed by the US government as well as its allies. The War on Terrorism thus had a number of implicate effects on the Christian communities around the world as they felt that they were being targeted for no reason of theirs at all. They were killed in large number as a result of the 9/11 attacks on US motherland and literally half of the Christian population within the US thought that its government had taken just the right step in combating its enemies who were indeed the terrorists. Now let us just focus on the war on terrorism as what it has done for the people of the world in reality. The attacks did not only kill 3000 people in the United States alone but it formed the basis for serious killings and massacres in different regions of the world which included Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria to name a few. War on terror has brought more terror to this world than it was possible in its absence. The restrictions on different governments, removal of others, financial bans on some economies and military aid distractions for others all means that there is some chaotic situation at the extremes [Merari, 1985]. It also means that the world has started to suffer as a result of the war on terror and the steps undertaken by the US regime and its allied partners in the form of Australia, the United Kingdom and so on can in no way account as the right step taken at that juncture of time. There is simply no justification available in any court of law of the world that states two wrongs make a single right. One cannot kill an individual who is innocent and has no connection with the 9/11 bombings within the United States to those who actually undertook those drastic steps in the first place. The balancing act needs to be straightened out in the whole equation and more so because US is the super power of the world and the super in charge has to show the way to other countries rather than imposing all sorts of bans and financial restrictions on countries which had nothing to do with the war on terror. The allied partners were told to choose either of the two ways, one which the US remarked as the right one and with her own self and one that was against the US policy in the aftermath of the 9/11 event and thus the latter one was remarked as something that would force US and its allied partners to attack that very country since it meant complete support for the so-called terrorists. What was needed was a clear cut definition of what terror indeed is and how the terrorists could be identified rather than lining up all the nations in a single line and asking them one way or the other. The war on terror thus had a lot of say in the way the countries responded to the call of the world’s police officer – the United States of America. [Walker, 2003] The war on terror was chosen by the US because in its own right it wanted to curb down the menace of terrorism right from its roots but what US forgot in all this activity was that US itself was the battle ground for all these terrorists and it indeed gave these people all the arms and ammunitions in the days just before the 9/11 and even in the days of the Soviet War. Furthermore, the policies are something that need to be discussed in detail since these actually form the real basis for the hard line orders that were meted out on the innocent people no matter where they lived all over the world. The backing thus provided by US had to come out in one way or the other which on the part of US turned into a very sorry affair at the end of the day. As concerns to morality attached with this discussion, we find out that the same is entirely immoral on the part of US. There is no justification available for killing tens of thousands of people on a daily basis for what happened on the ill fated day of September 2001. There is no validation for the barbaric acts of torture and torment that US has afflicted on the lives of young men and women and even children. President Bush might be a very reasonable person but he has forgotten the fact that only if he has solid proof so can he kill someone and that too with the proper procedures which are followed by the courts that are set for that very purpose. He is no God that he can kill just about anybody on the face of this earth as a reason that the deceased was in one way or the other involved in the 9/11 bombings. The ethical and moral concepts can further be substantiated by the fact that Bush commands absolutely no respect when it comes to his soldiers. They collectively believe that the supreme commander of the US has lost all dignity ever since he thought of destroying Afghanistan and then Iraq for his ulterior motives. The removal of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein might just be a single positive point coming out from his negative perspectives but then again he had no right to remove the head of a nation with which he had no role to get tangled into, in the first place. The Bush administration decided to increase the spending on Iraq and Afghanistan in the aftermath of the 9/11 events so that he could get elected for a second term [Silberstein, 2002]. They tried their best in sending more and more troops to these two nations as well as in creating a solid economy in the two countries. Apart from this, the Bush administration also planned to do its bit in the Presidential elections with a major electoral process that did away with the paper balloting norm, one that sparked up a controversy in the last elections as well. They planned to go digital, with results and the voting been done by the push of a single button. Bush also planned to make America as the strongest nation in the world, be it economically, democratically, in terms of warfare or in being labeled as the super power of the world. The war on terror has brought a change in the way the world is being run. The different governments have to take one or the other side in this whole muddle. The need is to understand who the winner is and who the loser is eventually [Oliverio, 2005]. More than that, the governments have to seek ways in which they could counter the pressures that are exerted by the US regime from time to time. For third world nations, this becomes an issue of immense importance since they are already stuck in one problem or the other, add to that the pressure meted down by the US authorities every now and so often. War on terror is not a war on the poor yet oil rich nations, it is a war for the benefits of the super power of the world, which it wants to win no matter what happens. The moral and ethical considerations for this war suggest that it is something that the US need not delve into in the first place and since it has already plunged into this problematic situation, which has its role no matter how direct or indirect it is indeed, US needs to get out of this situation with a brave face and more than anything else, aim to seek peace all over the world which seems to be missing ever since the chaotic day of 9/11 loomed large on the US. There is no winner and loser in the whole equation and US needs to understand that the morality principle outlines the fact concerning the very same but since it is bent upon detracting its opponents in any way possible, then little can be said and judged with regards to its motives. The American foreign policy has also made sure that it has notions of biasness when it comes to the countries which did not openly cave in to the demands of US and if seen from a rational perspective, this is just not the right thing to do. Maturity asks for more seriousness and an approach that can be remarked as being balanced for all members but sadly the same is indeed missing from the whole scheme of things. War against terrorism should in no way be substituted for a war against humanity and a sense of understanding and empathy must be re-ignited in the leaders of the countries who are ruling the world. More than anyone else, it is the American President George W Bush who has to understand his due role in the whole equation and change his stance with regards to the troubles and miseries of the countries undergoing this mental and physical torture at the hands of the world’s superpower. In the end, it would be wise to state here that the war on terrorism is nothing more than a war on the whole free world [War on Terrorism a Threat to Liberty, 2002]. It aims to discard the basis of any free and civil society and looks to protect the rights of American citizens which in entirety are not even being guaranteed let alone delivered by the American rulers. Therefore it would be correct if we state here that the war on terrorism has brought about a lot of wrongs for the different societies of the world and there seems to be no respite for the people who are living in the war trodden nations and those afflicted by misery due to sanctions and bans left, right and center. The rational in this whole context is thus one that looks to solve the problems of the needy and give room to these people so that they could improve their lives yet the exact opposite is happening if we take an incisive look at the present scheme of things. War against terrorism must be stopped immediately; instead there should be a war against the rulers who are bent upon destroying peace and a sense of calm on our mother earth. All said and done, peace must reign supreme no matter what the whims are of a particular leader or dictator to say the least. Work Cited Gareau, Frederick H. State Terrorism and the United States: From Counterinsurgency to the War on Terrorism. Clarity Press, 2004. Rich, Paul B.Grand Strategy in the War against Terrorism. Frank Cass, 2003. Merari, Ariel. On Terrorism and Combating Terrorism. University Publications of America, 1985. Oliverio, Annamarie. Introduction: Critical Perspectives on Terrorism International. Journal of Comparative Sociology, 2005. War on Terrorism a Threat to Liberty. The Washington Times, 2002. Walker, R B J. 11 September 2001: War, Terror and Judgment .Frank Cass, 2003. Silberstein, Sandra. War of Words: Language, Politics and 9/11 .Routledge, 2002. Word Count: 2,275 Read More