Essay about Machiavelli and War on Terror

Beneath its cloak, the infamous War on Terror garners striking similarities to WWI.  The terror attack on Austria-Hungary ignited the War on Terror…nearly a century later.  It was not until 1914 that a terrorist attack was utilized to provoke military response.  The attack of September 11 is a modern replay of this attack.  George W. Bush leapt into the war against Baghdad in 2003 with the same attitude of Woodrow Wilson in the Great War.  One of Wilson’s reasons for going to war against Germany was based on his belief that his

The Constitution holds similitude to many of Machiavelli’s sentiments, such as, “The chief foundations of all states...are good laws and good arms” (Machiavelli 55). The Constitution is the framework of the United States, outlining its law and the conduct of its army (US Const., art. 1, sec. 8). It provides the country with the strong laws and army that Machiavelli believed are essential to creating a powerful nation. In addition to being relevant in the foundation of America, The Prince manages to foresee the actions of its citizens. The treatise describes the mercurial disposition of mankind, “and whilst it is easy to persuade them, it is difficult to fix them in that persuasion” (Machiavelli 25). One recent example is the American public’s reaction to the Iraq War. In March of 2003, 72 percent of Americans believed the Iraq War was a positive thing, while only 22 percent disagreed, according to the Pew Research Center (Rosentiel). However, in February of 2008, just five years later, more than half of Americans disapprove of the decision to go to war (Rosentiel). The American government was able to persuade its citizens into supporting the war, despite it being based on misinformation and lies, long enough for the US to invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam Hussein, and avoid major repercussions (“Seven Years in Iraq”). Machiavellian concepts are even prominent in American presidential elections. The Prince claims that princes must lie to their subjects in order to accumulate power and support and that, “...It is necessary...to be a great pretender and dissembler; and...he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived.” This is reminiscent of the deception riddling the 2016 elections, with politicians in all parties spouting wicked falsehoods. Donald Trump, for instance, uses fictitious rhetoric such

He discusses that the prince have military knowledge, love and fear, trustworthiness, and good and bad reputations. He deeply believes in the art of war. "...a prince must not have any objective nor any thought, nor take up any art, other than the art of war and its ordering and discipline; because it is the only art that pertains to him who commands. And it is of such virtue that not only does it maintain those who were born princes, but many times makes men rise to that rank from private station; and conversely one sees that when princes have thought more of delicacies than of arms, they have lost their state." He also writes about whether it is better to be loved or feared, stating that it is best to be feared, but not hated. Love can change in an instant, and it is better to always have control, even if the prince must be feared. Patriotism and dedication to the state was also a very important aspect. In conclusion, Machiavelli strived for power and strength by any means possible. Through violence and fear, the end result would be worth it to him.

Machiavelli believes that the foundation of a strong Nation State is a strong army. According to The prince the most important part of being a leader is studying the art of war. Staying in power is a main point in the prince and to stay in power a Prince must conduct a strong army. The Prince proclaims not only do you need a strong army but also you need to be in total control of that army. “Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables

Although some leaders today would deny that fact that they act under Machiavelli’s way of thinking or behavior. Some would argue the fact that Machiavelli’s political ideas are in fact still relevant. In Scott Erb’s, “Reading Revolutions: Great Minds, Great Thoughts Machiavelli and Power Politics,” Erb states that if we could bring Machiavelli to the year 2005, “would Machiavelli have gone to war with Iraq?” Scott goes on to state that this would be a case where “Machiavelli would have relied on deception, delusion, and secret deals, perhaps even with Saddam Hussein.” Erb also pose another questioned in which he asks, “How would Machiavelli assess the war in Iraq?” He states that “it’s pretty obvious that Machiavelli would have assessed it as a dismal failure. He’d argue that if you are to fight a war, and you are a major power, you must come at it with everything you need to totally dominate.  He’d be appalled at the way the US has allowed itself to be weakened and humiliated by not having enough forces to control the country, but yet enough to create dissent at home and chaos in Iraq.  He’d also think the idea of spreading democracy or nation building was absurd; better to simply put an authoritarian leader in power that will be friendly to us.” If we take a look at the Patriot Act, would we say that would have been something that Machiavelli would have approve. What about protecting the country by any means necessary from terrorism? Would

Unlike what we see in the articles of lao-tzu and Thomas Jefferson. Machiavelli, in comparison, has almost no faith in human nature. He believes a monarch is better be feared than loved. And he believes that people should be strictly controlled by the monarchies. It is like what Hannah Arendt described in total domination, where there is no trust between the elite and the people. Even in some violent way, suppression is acceptable. Different from both lao-tzu and Jefferson. Lao-tzu believes that any kind of war is destructive and unnecessary. Jefferson believes that war fought to defend oneself is destructive but necessary. On the other hand, Machiavelli celebrate the act of war and praise the ones who prepare for war. These ideas seems cruel

George W. Bush, our current President, must keep a copy of Machiavelli’s most celebrated work, “The Prince “(1513), on his desk in the Oval Office. In my opinion, Bush and his administration’s actions mimic Machiavelli’s advice to the Prince on the tactics that he should use to stay in power. I am going to discuss how President Bush uses Machiavellian principles.

Machiavelli also wrote how to govern dominions that are being occupied by people that live under their own laws and values. His first edict reflects the Bush Administration’s actions and decisions on how to spread democracy in Iraq:

Now onto the main mission in Operation Enduring Freedom, the War in Afghanistan. The main reason behind this war was to dismantle the al-Qaeda organization and stopping them from using Afghanistan as their base. The United States would also go on to state that they were attempting to take the Taliban out of power and create a nation with a more democratic government. This war began on October 7th, 2001, and is still ongoing

People are unlikely to overthrow a ruler that they fear, for they dread the punishments of failure. If the ruler is not feared by the people, he will eventually upset enough of them that they will rise up against him. They will overthrow him because of his perceived weakness, and his name and image will be shamed in the eyes of both his government and his people. Machiavelli believes that the state is completely separate from the ruler’s private life. No matter how immoral or heartless the ruler may be in private, only his public image is important. A ruler can be a terrible, sleazy person on their own time, and when not involved with matters of the state, but at any time when the leader is involved in politics and the state, you cannot afford to injure the image of the ruler or else anarchy will develop. With this kind of rebellion can come revolution, war, and many other tragedies that could be otherwise avoided.

When examining Machiavelli political ideals, it is hard to look at it without saying this is cruel and not ideal in any sense. Machiavelli is a prime example for a strong leader that pursues justice through unification and has shown to be very open-minded. Justice doesn’t just come through cruelty and strength, it also requires intelligence with careful studies. As exhibited in the prior quote, he takes in historical mistakes and success to shape his ideal. To have a culture with justice, Machiavelli pushes that “It is necessary for a prince who wish to maintain his position to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge or not to use it accordingly” (224). It is quite evident that Machiavelli is willing to use the full extent of his power without fear. Through his willingness and open-mindedness, he examines both side, good and the bad, for the benefit of his country. He believes only those that can utilize both knowledge is fit for the position of being a prince. When he says knowledge, it goes deep into the studies of history and past experiences. It is shown time and time again throughout his

In essence, Machiavelli’s ideal principality sustains a genuine sense of morality behind the violence that “must be subjected in order to maintain stability.” Looking at his plans subjectively,

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.

War Against Terror and Human Rights The Human Rights Act 1998 took full legal effect across the English and Welsh legal systems on October 2nd 1998. The Act, allows people to claim a number of the rights and freedoms that are set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government had high hopes that when the act was passed it would create a 'Culture of Human Rights within the United Kingdom.'