Handling The War On Terror

Introduction. The United States’ War on Terror is a mistake because it is bringing more burdens and terrorism to the United States at home and abroad.

The United States from the Cold War and into the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) continues to face challenges in translating military might into political desires due to its obsession with raising an army, electing politicians and assembling a diplomatic corp that continue to gravitate towards State-to-State engagements that if not rectified could lead to substantial delays in fighting terrorism and non-terrorist adversaries or worse total failure of the United States Military’s ability to properly carry out it’s politicians objectives due to being blindsided.

Terrorism is a massive problem--everybody realizes that. Regardless of origin, culture, country, or political standpoint, every sane person understands that terrorism is something that is still relatively prevalent in the world, and something needs to be done about it. The problem, however, is that there is no easy solution. The United States tends to take overbearing control and responsibility for all terrorist threats, groups, and attacks, but this is simply not reasonable. Although we cannot expect every country to take initiative against terrorist threats like ISIS, sustained international coordination is necessary to effectively confront transnational terrorist groups (Shirkey). This way, the US can begin taking care of themselves and their own country, as they still have many issues that have yet to be solved. While working together is important, though, it is not the key to solving the problem. What we must do in addition is investigate and address the root causes of terrorism, and analyse them in detail in order to best combat terrorist groups at their roots.

The United States has been at war since its creation in 1776. Notably, one of the most crucial wars was the War on Terror. Beginning in March of 2003, this war initially served the purpose of getting rid of the country 's leader Saddam Hussein to prevent his use of suspected stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Hussein was best-known as a Middle Eastern ruler with a violent regime. He governed Iraq from 1979 until his capture in 2003when President Bush presumed he was harboring chemical weapons such as synthetic warheads, shells, or aviation bombs. While politics justified invading Iraq, the conflict between the U.S. and Iraq began long before the war. In the post-election leading up to the war, political officials such as George Bush attested repeatedly that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and posed a danger to the U.S. and other targets. Bush sold the war to Americans by attesting these cases of threat to Americans openly with supreme certainty. The United States of America should not have invaded Iraq as it allowed the establishment of government power and democracy without evidence under prior resolutions, increased violence, and forced American citizens to inquire significant debt including the injuries and hardships sustained by U.S. soldiers.

Over the course of United States History the country has engaged in several wars. Some of these wars were for independence, national preservation, and national defense. Other wars were for more dubious and obscure reasons such as stopping the spread of communism, “protecting America’s interests”, and the “war on terror”. Throughout the history of the United States foreign affairs another pattern has emerged. Our propensity toward military action has also had the unintended consequence of fostering an atmosphere of distrust, anger, and resentment that nurtures potential enemies. This begs the question; does the United States create its own future enemies? If this is the case, what can we do to stop this?

A huge wake up call for the whole world was the 9/11 attacks. So many people’s lives were changed or taken away when this disaster struck in the United States. Many people are scared for life because of what happened that day and it got them to thinking more seriously about how to prevent terrorism and how to treat terrorists or suspected terrorists.

Since the brutalizing attacks that occurred in the United States on September 11, 2001, terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, and its subdivision turned adversary - the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria - which we affectionately refer to as ISIS, have metastasized into a worldwide threat that has shaken our way of life, our culture, and our approach to our opponents (Kohlmann). From 2013 to 2014 there was a whopping 35% increase in terrorism with attacks in 95 countries, proving that despite the valiant counterattacks, terrorism will not go down without a fight (Williams). Of course, the United States did declare a “war on terror” that despite many cons did result in the ultimate pro - the assassination of Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda and mastermind behind many terrorist attacks, including 9/11 (Shah). All casualties aside, the death of bin Laden, and more specifically the means by which his

Terrorism has been in existence for many decades. Most recently, the events of September 11th, 2001 have sparked discussions and controversies on the issue of the war on terror. Many nation’s and organization’s have different definitions of terrorism, what laws should be used when dealing with terrorism, and whether or not it is time to rethink the rules of the war on terror. Twelve years after the attacks of 9/11 I believe it is time to reconsider, especially the United State’s rules, on terrorism and the war on terror.

War on terror refers to the ongoing military campaign led by U.S and U.K against organizations identified as terrorists. Terrorism can be defined as an unlawful violence or war deliberately targeted to civilians. It can also be defined as a systematic use of terror to coerce or violent acts intended to create fear. This threat is normally perpetrated for religious, political or ideological goals. The conflict as also called by other names. They include World War III, The Long War, War on Terrorism, Bush’s War on Terror, The Global War of Terror and War on Al-Qaeda, (Coaty, 2010).

Introduction. The United States’ War on Terror is a mistake because it is bringing more burdens and terrorism to the United States at home and abroad.

As a new presidential team enters the White House, the threat of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is an important issue that will require changes in strategy if American foreign policy hopes to successfully eliminate the threat of ISIS in the Mideast and beyond. The current policy of the United States on dealing with terrorism through military action emphasizes: utilizing allies, keeping American ground troops out of Iraq and Syria, and direct action through military strikes. This strategy has been relatively successful in the past in keeping ISIS in check, but the recent rising power of the radical state suggests this policy is failing to achieve the ultimate goal of eliminating the threat entirely. In order to reach the American

After the events of September 11, 2001, the United States had a unique dilemma. America was engaged in what would be called a “War on Terror”. This new conflict was unlike any in American history. Previously, in the context of war the United States had always fought a nation or group that had defined boundaries as to where they resided. This new conflict went away from these rules of the past. Terrorist groups were not bound to a region, but were instead united by an ideal. September 11 marked the first time in which terrorism would rise to the forefront of the nation’s agenda. This emergent wave of conflict required a different strategy than the those of the past because of the unorthodox nature of the opponent. One of the major innovations fostered by the “War on Terror” was the expansion of torture. The dramatic rise in terrorism sparked the unethical advancement of interrogation techniques in order to more effectively acquire information. The emergence of the “War on Terror” required government officials acquire intelligence in a new way thus spawning the emergence of “enhanced interrogation” methods, however, the morality of these techniques would come into question as they were revealed to the public.

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

The Global War on Terror is a military campaign led by the United States and the United Kingdom and supported by other NATO members. It was originally against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with the purpose of eliminating them. This paper discusses how the Bush Administration handled the War on Terror as well as different aspects of it, including its terminology, its objectives, its military operations and criticism against it.