When analyzing the world's current situation concerning terrorism, it is difficult to say whether the global war on terrorism has been a successful one. Eight years later, this promise has yet to be fulfilled, and even with the help of many countries globally, the threat of terrorism is still evident more then ever, which questions whether the global war on terror is succeeding.
Moreover, to entirely grasp the subject, one must be familiar with the definition of terrorism and it can be defined as an act of violence or threatened violence intended to spread panic in a society, and to bring about political change. Terrorists do not necessarily live in their native states, they also migrate to neighboring countries, and countries abroad and often go undetected. The logistics and man power it takes to combat terrorism is immense, and it seems more evident that the global war on terrorism is not succeeding due to essentially three factors.
Second, international support for the global war on terrorism is decreasing. Third, terrorism has been on the constant increase since September 11, Although the invasion was intended to disarm Iraq from any weapons of mass destruction, it was also aimed at uncovering and eliminating any terrorist organizations within the country since several United States officials accused Hussein of harboring and supporting al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization responsible for the September 11 attacks.
Prior to the United States' and United Kingdom's occupation, the people of Iraq were not able to speak their minds, but what they did have was security and the basic amenities to get through the day. However, some argue that the occupation of Iraq was essential in the global fight against terrorism.
Former President George W. Bush stated that if the United States and the United Kingdom had not invaded Iraq, terrorists would not be idle. By fighting these terrorists in Iraq, Americans in uniform are defeating a direct threat to the American people. Both arguments made by the two former leaders are relevant, yet they did not take into consideration the hostility and anger that both the United States and the United Kingdom would produce as a result of their occupation of Iraq. Invading Iraq may have deterred it from becoming a threat to the American people and the people of the world at the time, but overtime what has been evident is the increase in religious extremist and terrorist activity within Iraq and surrounding areas.
The global war on terrorism had begun in where the coalition of the willing was created by George W. Bush, which were nations who supported the U. The coalition of the willing was made up of forty-nine members, most notably, England, France, Germany, Japan, India and Russia.
Out of the forty-nine members, only four supplied troops to the invasion force United Kingdom, Australia, Poland and Denmark. All forty-nine countries part of the coalition of the willing had strong support for the war on terrorism, but as of , support had decreased.
Moreover, less than half of the United Kingdom and Germany supported the war, only forty-three percent of France were in favor and a very low twenty-six percent of Japanese people supported the war. This decline in support was substantial, and according to a Pew Research Centre survey, most of the countries surveyed regarding the U. In fact, when surveyed regarding the war on Iraq, the majority of people living within the countries belonging to the coalition of the willing believed that the war in Iraq made the world more dangerous.
Such evidence suggests that these are the reasons why international support for the war on terrorism decreased. Furthermore, the Pew Research Centre discovered through polls that most countries within the coalition of the willing believed that the true purpose of the U. S-led war on terrorism was to control the oil within the Middle East and to dominate the world. An additional underlying factor that can be contributing to this decrease of support for the United States may be the misunderstanding and misinterpretation between countries on the definition of terrorism.
Bush's interpretation of terrorism was the same as theirs. In his address to the nation, George W. Nevertheless, some may not disagree that there is decreasing support for the U. Issues of prisoner abuse arose, which were then made public throughout the world and left a stain on the United States effort to fight terrorism.
If it had to be defined in the way it seems to have been intended, it could be as a set of actions aimed — or purported to be aimed — at eliminating or reducing terrorism in the world. To understand whether the War on Terror is deterrence or compellence or neither there has to be a stipulated definition of deterrence and compellence. Deterrence is the threat of force made by an actor with the aim of preventing an adversary from engaging in a particular course of action; whereas compellence is the threat of force made by an actor with the aim of compelling an adversary to undo something already done or begin a particular course of action.
Is the War on Terror Deterrence or Compellence? The War on Terror has some characteristics that resemble deterrence. An important adversary in this case is al Qaeda, and the U. Explicit statements of American willingness and physical capability have been made in public addresses, for example: Explicit acknowledgment is made of deterrence as a strategy in the War on Terror, but it is merely one of many strategies included in the war, not a description of the war itself: Whether the War on Terror has worked for its stated purposes — American defense and making the world freer and more peaceful — would depend upon whether the U.
S is safer now than it was prior to its launching, and whether any part of the world is freer or safer as a consequence. According to their own National Intelligence Estimate America is not safer. By tying up their resources in Iraq and Afghanistan, they reduce their own credibility. The War on Terror may be regarded as something of a failure in those regards. The undemocratic Musharraf regime has been supported; Iraq has become more violent, captured Iraqis have been tortured and terrorism has become more rampant there.
Relations with Iran are deteriorating, and many in the world fear the U. S more than terrorism. In those regards too the War in Iraq seems to have been a failure.
The War on Terror as Defensive:
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.3/5(5).
- Dangers of the War on Terrorism The President of the United State has used the phrases “War on Poverty”, “War on Drugs”, War on Illiteracy”, and the “War on Hunger,” when describing the problems Americans are facing.
Sep 11, · Realism and the War on Terror Essay Words | 3 Pages Realist thought on international relations fit comfortably within the context of the great wars of the twentieth century. The war on terror is creating great misfortune on the lives of its victims. Governments have pointed at the War on Terror as justification to take away the rights of privacy of average citizens. The Israeli attacks on Palestinians are a direct example of how the war on terror has led to genocide.
War on Terror Essay When analyzing the world's current situation concerning terrorism, it is difficult to say whether the global war on terrorism has been a successful one. Since the September 11, attack on the World Trade Centers in New York City, George Bush, former president of the United States, vowed to defeat terrorism. Terrorism Essay: War on Terrorism - Round 1 - War on Terrorism: Round 1 The Bush Troika´s war on terrorism reached first base after installing a new government in Afghanistan. One of the poorest and most defenseless countries on earth has been bombed into rubble by a megalomaniac superpower that can see no limits to its rights of domination.