Operation Silent Night Case Study

Comprehending the underlying authority for the President of the United States to authorize the international use of military operations in order to respond to an attack or as a counter-terrorism strategy, may be difficult to fathom for those who are not familiar with practices and philosophies associated in this realm. Conducting military operations against the Taliban government in Afghanistan, detaining suspected terrorists, both indefinitely domestically and abroad, and the use of unmanned drones to disrupt and destroy suspected terrorists and those aiding them in areas such as Pakistan fall under the umbrella of what the US has been able to accomplish in our last 12 years during the Global War on Terror.

After divulging majority of the nature of the operation, he indicates that the threat has not ended, and implicitly speaks about Al Qaeda’s pursuit to do malice to the United States--as well as the world. President Obama’s intention is to

The government’s response to the September 11, 2001 events was quick and decisive. Government officials attributed responsibility for the attack to Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda organization. One result was an announced policy shift from deterrence to preemption, generally referred to as the “Bush Doctrine.” (National Security Strategy, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html].) Given the potential consequences of terrorist attacks employing weapons of mass destruction, government decision makers felt that the nation could not afford to sit back, wait for attacks to occur, and then respond. The nation was mobilized; combating terrorism and crippling Al Qaeda became top national priorities. The use of military force against different terrorist groups and infrastructure gained increasing acceptance in Government policy circles. In addition, a February 14, 2003, National Strategy for Combating Terrorism [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030214-7.html] gave more emphasis to the role of international cooperation, law enforcement and economic development in countering terrorism.

“The Obama administration has sanctioned at least forty-one CIA missile strikes in Pakistan”(Mayer). The attacks have killed an estimate of 26,538 people who have mostly been children and innocent bystanders. In 2011, Obama intervened, and waged war in Libya and sent US troops without congressional authorization. Obama received negative responses that argued that his decisions were not aligned with Congress's War Powers Act. Obama believed the operation followed the guidelines of the act as he notified Congress within 48 hours along with the 60 day period he had before removing US troops. In a report written by lawmakers from both political parties on the legality of the war they stated “because U.S. military operations [in Libya] are distinct from the kind of ‘hostilities’ contemplated by the resolution, the deadlines for congressional approval or force withdrawal do not apply”

President Obama is one of those people who does not obtain the desire to send troops to fight Isis, for he expresses this opinion in his statement, “This is not a traditional military opponent, we can retake territory and as long as we keep our troops there we can hold it. But that does not solve the underlying problem of eliminating the dynamics that are producing these kinds of violent, extremist groups,” (“Obama Won’t Send,” 2015). President Obama has been faced with war decisions on terrorism prior to Isis with the terrorist group, Al Qaeda. When Barack Obama became president, he sent most of America’s ground troops in Iraq home to their families. He then announced the United States was no longer pursuing a War on Terror, but rather focusing the military on specific enemies. This war tactic ended in success, given the Navy SEALs raided the Al Qaeda leader’s compound. Navy SEALs then shot and killed Al Qaeda’s leader, Osama Bin

Bush attempts to persuade the frightened, American people to protect the American values and support a war by building his credibility through his fair-mindedness and goodwill. Bush says, “The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them” (Bush 54). Here, Bush conveys his fair-judgment and fair-mindedness because he conveys the importance of making the clear distinction between radical, terrorists and the peaceful “Muslim [and] Arab friends” (54). George W. Bush made the clear difference as a message to non-Muslim and non-Arab Americans in order to protect Arabs and Muslims from being falsely accused or threatened by unfair and ignorant people. Bush’s courage to make the distinction and his fair judgment of Muslims and Arabs, despite much uncertainty after the horrible attacks, builds his credibility by promoting him as a fair, moral leader. The strengthened credibility of Bush may encourage the American people to trust his plan as a leader. The fair-mindedness and goodwill of Bush served as a way to convey his good intentions and as an attempt to persuade the unsettled American

As evident from the actual attacks made by this group, any move by the Al- Qaeda poses a threat to the wellness of the citizens of America. Not only did the team focus on killing people, but it also had the department of defense as a target implying that it aimed at weakening the security of the country. In open letter made by Osama bin Laden (Al-Qaeda’s leader) to the USA, he described the group’s motive to stop America from engaging in peace missions in locations where Al-Qaeda or Islamic nations are involved. According to the United States, however, finishing such missions translates to the promotion of terrorism which cannot be tolerated in the country`s aim of supporting peace missions (Michael

Furthermore, President Obama says, “We can’t ignore what happens beyond our borders. If nuclear materials are not secure, that poses a danger to American citizens.” Realists’ believe that the “the primary objective of all states (i.e. their governments) is to follow the national interest and states must rely on their own efforts to ensure their own security” (Sens & Stoett, 2014, p.15). The fact that a country like Iran wants to holster nuclear weapons is seen as a threat to America and its citizens. Additionally, the U.S. military reportedly killed Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan, without informing or taking consent from Pakistani officials. The president claims to take these actions to protect the U.S. and its citizens but not thinking what dramatic consequences and difficulties are faced in the countries where innocent lives are perished. America gains it’s own protection at the cost of others.

It was the terrorist attack that occurred on September 11, 2001 that shook America and the rest of the world and contributed to the rise of Islamic militancy and terrorism. On that day, members from al-Quaeda, an Islamic militant group, had hijacked four planes and caused destruction on American soil. As a result, President George W. Bush was able to gain public support on his “tough talk about bringing terrorists to justice.” (826) President Bush ultimately declared and upheld “a global war on terror” that ignited the passions of many Americans and received much support from other nations. Pushing on with the support of many people on his international objectives, President Bush unsucessfully dispatched “American forces to Afghanistan to hunt down bin Laden, destroy al-Quaeda training camps, and topple the Taliban government that had provided a haven for the terrorists.” (826)

After the attacks on 9/11, the “War on Terror” became President Bush’s main focus for his political agenda. After the 2008 presidential election, soon that focus belonged to President Obama. The executive actions, legislation, and controversy that resulted during Bush’s presidency would soon be inherited by President Obama. During President Obama’s campaign in 2008, he promised that he would be very different from President Bush in how he employed executive power to fight terrorism. He stated that he would try and restore the balance between liberty and security. Others have argued that President Obama has continued and expanded the policies set in place by his predecessor. I will be arguing that President Obama has not followed President Bush’s approach to the war on terror. There are two reasons why President Obama has not continued Bush’s approach. The first reason is that President Obama has rejected the inherent and unchecked power under the commander in chief authority that Bush invoked during his administration. The second reason is that President Obama has recognized the need for greater accountability and institutional checks.

Less spectacular, however, are current measures against the growing pressure of terrorism. Former President George W. Bush’s doctrine employed a very aggressive, muscular approach towards preventing terrorist attacks by targeting countries that may harbor terrorist organizations along with the individual terrorists. By choosing to increase military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama

Nowadays, terrorism events more and more appear on this planet, which is a terrible thing. There are so many terrorism attack events in this world, and the famous one is the September 11 attacks. Those terrorists who came from the al-Qaeda controlled four planes attacking three places of the United States of America. It made so many innocent people were killed. Children lost their parents and a lot of people lost their relative. The September 11 attacks event arouses people’s anti-terrorism awareness in this world which just like a deep scar in people’s mind and no one would forget it. The government of the United Stated of America decided taking military action to find Osama bin Laden out who is the leader of al-Qaeda. In this case, the United

The message of Obama about the case of Osama Bin Laden reveals that the incident of Osama’s death which was avenge of US for 9/11 attack, brought the satisfaction, comfort and happiness in US nation. But it was not the end of terrorism. This incident puts long lasting impacts and in future Al Qaida will remain against US and can do attacks. So Obama’s message showed that instead of death of Osama Bin Laden, they must be vigilant in future. Obama’s speech also showed proud that what US wants it was done and achieved, so in future they also fight and never leave their enemy. He also thanked to all members of team who made this plan successful and he mention the counter terrorism department of Pakistan which helped them a lot to accomplish this attack. (Obama B., 2011). And the message of Leon Panetta describe that this incident is a source of satisfaction and comfort for many familiesespecially those were inflicted by the 9/11 attack. On the other hand he also have same views about future that it was end of Osama not Al Qaida so they must remain vigilant in future to avoid these attacks.(Panetta, 2011)

Since 9/11/01 the United States has been under attack by terrorism and George W. Bush started the war against terrorism but his presidency has ended. Since then Barack Obama has taken over as president and he has a new strategy, which consists of, protecting our homeland by constantly reducing our vulnerabilities, adapting, and updating our defenses, killing Osama bin Laden and many of his top Lieutenants, and giving law enforcement new ways to counter-terrorism. President Obama believes in order to hinder terrorism the US must increase the efficacy of our law enforcement, actively seek out to take out al’ Qaeda’s leaders, and constantly decrease our vulnerabilities.

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.