Defining Success in the War on Terrorism
In pursuing its war on terrorism, the Bush administration faces daunting military and diplomatic challenges. But need it also worry about mobilizing public support? With the latest polls showing the public giving the president 90 percent approval ratings and endorsing the use of force at the same level, could the White House possibly hope for any more backing from the American people?
President Bush seems to think so. Every speech he gives appears to be primarily concerned with shoring up public opinion, warning us about the difficulties ahead and purposefully praising Americans for their "patience and resolve." The administration understands a basic truth about leading a democracy
…show more content…
intervention in Somalia because American soldiers died, while it accepted our actions in Kosovo because no Americans died. This is the myth of the casualty-phobic public -- a canard that genuinely casualty-phobic policymakers have found expedient, but which has left America vulnerable to exactly the kind of terrorist attack we just witnessed. What is Osama bin Laden's fundamental premise if not the belief that killing some Americans will drive our country to its knees?
Actually, the public will support even a costly war provided the stakes warrant it and the president can persuasively promise victory. In this instance, the stakes could not be higher. What is lacking is a compelling account of victory, a frame for war aims that shapes how the public will interpret unfolding events.
Early attempts at providing such a frame were hopelessly, if understandably, grandiose. The administration has appropriately retreated from its vow to "rid the world of evil," "rid the world of evildoers," or even "rid the world of terrorists." Worthy goals but simply unachievable. The narrower definition of victory offered in the president's congressional address -- destroying terrorists with global reach -- was better, but still difficult to translate into concrete benchmarks answering the question: "Are we winning?"
Subsequently, in a New York Times op-ed, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as much as said that in this war, the
The Bush administration obtained a substantial amount of advantages solely from calling the 911 attacks a “war”. American citizens believed that they were obligated to trust every decision the government made. Primarily because American citizens believed that it was unpatriotic to disagree with government actions concerning the “war” against a perpetrating country.(Denton 2) Bush and his administration created a larger margin of error for themselves considering the American citizens most likely would not question any government decisions pertaining to the “war”.
Imagine what it’s like to be a member of a nation who’s just been victimized in attacks that took the lives of around 3000 innocent people. The Attacks of September 11, 2001 were a series of four acts of terrorism directed towards the United States. The whole nation was present in a state of utter shock and emotional disarray. Besides, many of their loved ones were taken from them, and many others were threatened. If the Taliban terrorists were willing to commit attacks such as the ones of September 11th, 2001, then what made everyone else immune? In the “Address to Joint Session of Congress Following 9/11 Attacks,” George W. Bush substantially utilizes strong pathos, in addition to use of moderate amounts of ethos, logos, and a very urgent and resentful tone to persuade the American people that he will take the measures necessary to ensure that the terrorists are brought to justice. In fact, he was well aware that the people were fearful regarding their future, and he took full advantage of the emotional nature of the situation to win over the support of the people at the time. After 9/11 and his speeches, his approval rating shot up to an all time high; he had managed to intoxicate the people in the fashion which he handled the circumstances, and convinced the American people that they were in good hands.
On September 11, 2015 the greatest act of terror known was committed at the World Trade Center, as well as the Pentagon. The terrorist group known as al-Quaeda coordinated an attack by hijacking U.S. commercial flights and sending two planes into the World Trade Center and another into the Pentagon. Luckily, a fourth flight was retaken by the passengers and could not reach its target, yet sadly it crashed in a Pennsylvanian valley. This event broke the hearts of American citizens and citizens worldwide, and the actions coming after wards would have a huge impact on America.
9/11 catalyzed the public’s support of military presence in the Middle East, as the immediate threat to
Following the 9/11 attack in America, Bush declares Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda as the enemy. Bush clearly states that the 9/11 attacks were an initiative action of war and coins the term, “War on Terror” which has developed and is also adaptable with other terms, such as “War on Drugs”. His speech also educates his people about Islamic terrorism alongside their practices and mentality. Bush seems extremely patriotic and expresses great anger and almost thinks for his citizens by saying, “our grief has turned to anger”. Nonetheless, Bush feels strongly about defending America’s freedom and won’t back down to this violence. Furthermore, Bush’s speech was extremely effective as the crowd was very dense, actively involved through cheers and claps. This however, may have induces a mob mentality as an individual action of support such as a cheer could easily ripple through the crowd and suddenly everyone
The failure of the War on Terror is largely due to America’s lack of a clear objective. The 2002 National
In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln spoke the timeless words ??government of the people, by the people, for the people?. He might not have known they were the undercurrent of a war that was fought eighty-two years prior in 1781; a war fought one hundred and forty-eight years in the future in 2011. I truly believe that the government floats by the ebbs and flows of its citizens will and opinion. Their will can drive us to war or their will melts away not remembering why we went to war in the first place. The peoples will is the rudder steering the Diplomatic, Information, Military and Economic ?DIME? spectrum maneuvering its way across the governmental swamp. The peoples will to vote and protest shape our diplomatic outcomes. The peoples
Since the war on Iraq began on March 20, 2003, at least 1,402 coalition troops have died and 9,326 U.S. troops have been wounded in action. This is no small number and the count grows daily. One would hope, then, that these men and women were sent to war with just cause and as a last resort. However, as the cloud of apprehension and rhetoric surrounding the war has begun to settle, it has become clear that the Bush administration relied on deeply flawed analyses to make its case for war to the United Nations and to the American people, rushing this country, and its soldiers, into war. This is not to say that this war was waged against a blameless regime or that our soldiers have died
America is under attack, not from an enemy in a faraway land, but here at home, by our own government. In the current year 2010, almost 7 years after "shock and awe" campaign that officially started the war in Iraq, the U.S. government fails to recognize that our efforts in the Middle East have plateaued, and it is time to bring our troops home. The surge campaigns in recent years were felt by many, to be an unofficial recognition that the war is not going well, and several top generals have had high hopes for this military strategy, but compelling evidence concludes this was a short-lived success. No one can deny the financial toll the Iraq war has had on America, for America is in the middle of one of the worst economic crisis in recent
Ten years ago on September 11th, terrorists successfully carried out a plan to kill thousands of innocent American civilians. On that day millions of Americans watched in horror and disbelief. How could something like this happen on American soil? In quick retaliation, President George W. Bush forcefully declared a war against terrorism and specifically against those responsible for the slaughter of his people, Al Qaida. At the head of this organization and architect of “9-11” was a man by the name of Osama Bin Laden. He openly boasted of the devastation he had caused, which in turn enraged the American people. This man eluded us for the past ten years until a little over a week ago President Barack Obama announced to the world that
As a direct consequence of September 11, a number of substantial challenges lie ahead in the area of counter-terrorism.. The most prominent of these is the changing nature of the terrorism phenomenon. In past years, when terrorism was largely the product of direct state sponsorship, policymakers were able to diminish prospects for the United States becoming a target using a combination of diplomatic and military instruments to deter potential state sponsors. Today, however, many terrorist organizations and individuals act independently from former and present state sponsors, shifting to other sources of support, including the development of transnational networks.
The world has been changed forever since the tragic attack on September 11, 2001. An observer described the atrocity by saying, "It just went 'bam,' like a bomb went off. It was like holy hell (CNN 1). " The new world will be different from what any American has known before. A new war has arisen, not against a foreign country or a major region of the world, but rather against a select group of people who have the capabilities to destroy the lives of so many. The war against terrorism which the United States is now forced to wage will not be an easily won battle. This war will not be fought solely on scattered battlefields in certain countries. It will instead permeate through every aspect of life as we
Ever since the beginning of the terrorist attacks on American soil, the War on Terror has been involved in the lives of Americans and nations near us. The War on Terror’s background originated through conflicts between warring countries in the Middle East; U.S. involvement started when a terrorist guided plane crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 in New York City. The attack was suspected to be the work of the middle-eastern terrorist group Al-Qaeda. The U.S. military, under the leadership of then commander-in-chief George W. Bush, declared a “War on Terror” on the terrorist group and the fighting began.
Think of the word terrorism. What is the first thing that comes to mind? One might think of kidnapping, assassination, bombing, or even genocide and guerrilla warfare. Because it is such a broad and complex issue, an all-encompassing definition is hard to formulate. The United States Department of Defence defines terrorism as…
The term “War on Terror” alone has created a psychological phenomenon that struck fear in the minds of many Americans. The Bush Administration elevated those three words to a national mantra that had impacted the American democracy destructively. It had impacted the American psyche as well as the United States’ standing in the world. In an article by Zibigniew Brzezinski, he explains, “Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.”