Tenet Of Redemption

In August of 2002, the Bush administration’s position about Iraq had changed significantly. Prior to this point, the United States and other western countries had been arming Iraq with weapons of every type. The fact the United States and other countries had been arming Iraq with weapons, shows how little they considered Iraq to be a threat. This quickly changed. A debate on invading Iraq, held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, created

National security became the ground breaking concern in the United States after the tragic events unfolded on September 11, 2001. Many questions were brought to the attention of the public eye, such as why the September 11 attacks weren’t diffused prior to the deaths of

President Bush creates a logical appeal through precedent and an immediate course of action regarding the issues at hand to both reassure the audience and gain their support for the war. When Bush states that “for the past 136 years, [wars] have been...on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941,” (Bush) he reminds the audience of the rarety and significance of war being fought within America. The minimal amount of precedent in recent American history for such an occurence makes the audience perceive fighting the terrorists logically the nest step, much like Americans supported entering World War II as a result of the attack on Pearl Harbor. George W. Bush announces “the creation of a Cabinet-level postion...the Office of Homeland Security,” (Bush) which presents an immediate and obvious way terrorism is being combatted, thus reassuring the American people. Bush strengthens his support further by creating an ethical appeal.

During the past decade of military operations combating terrorism, members of the U.S. government have thoroughly debated the power of the President and the role of Congress during a time of war. A historical review of war powers in America demonstrates the unchecked power of the executive when it comes to military decision-making and the use of force. Throughout history the power of the President to initiate, conduct, and sustain military operations without oversight has greatly increased. Through a historical lens, this essay will

In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)

Fighting a war on terror was outlined in President Bush’s speech, starting with al-Quida. He proclaimed that America would “pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorist” (McNamee, 2001). During his speech, the president unveiled the plans for the United Stated Department of Homeland Security.

There must be a just cause when resorting to war. This can imply either self-defence actions or be fought in order to provide humanitarian aid to the victims of aggression.

The war on terror, following the events of 9/11, made people acknowledge a new form of enemy. Terrorisms became the central focus of nations and various actions were taken to ensure that such a horrendous act never transpires again. However, the problems associated with these legal constraints has led to many international law violations. This paper will seek to discuss these legal constraints and its effect on the war on terror. In order to demonstrate this, the principles of distinction, proportionality and military necessity will be examined to understand whether the legal actions of the United States were appropriate and legal. The principles of distinction, proportionality and military necessity are central to jus in bello (also known as “the laws of war”). These three principles are closely interconnected with one another and are necessary to determine whether a war can be perceived as being legitimate.

On September 20, 2002, the Bush administration published a national security manifesto titled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America"; sometimes called “the Bush Doctrine”, which is a justification for easy recourse to war whenever and wherever an American president chooses. The United States wanted more control over the Middle East and the oil that could be obtained there; all they needed was an excuse to go to war and in turn be able to obtain resources. After 9/11 Bush had his excuse; Al Qaeda. Weaving a trail of propaganda and fear through the media with false information, Bush ordered an invasion of Iraq in pursuit of his form of hegemonic internationalism. The reasons broadcasted by the White House claimed that Saddam Hussein (President of Iraq in 2002) was building weapons of mass destruction and promoting/supporting terrorism which made him a grave threat to the western world. The real reason behind invading Iraq was to secure American access to vital resources, being oil. Iraq had been attacking Iran who was dangerously close to Saudi Arabia which is a huge supplier of oil to the United States. Once the United States had control of Iraq they installed a sympathetic “democratic” government which had eliminated the Iraqi threat to Saudi oil. Through the pursuit of hegemonic internationalism the United States had achieved one of its national interests, obtaining vital resources, but at a huge cost. Over 1 million

On September 11th 2001, the United States was hit with a devastating blow when four commercial airplanes were hijacked by Al-Qaeda terrorist who deliberately crashed two of the planes into the World Trade Center complex, and a third plane into the Pentagon. The fourth plane, headed for Washington D.C., instead crashed in Pennsylvania. Nearly 3,000 lives were lost on this egregious day. In response, President George W. Bush waged the controversial “Global War on Terrorism” which turned out to be a self-inflicted wound for America, bleeding still today. Bush’s highly-criticized decision was inconsistent with the strategic principles of war.

The reasons given for the original invasion of Iraq (Bush, 2003) mainly surrounded that there was supposedly "irrefutable" evidence that Iraq had, and was prepared to use, Weapons of Mass Destruction. The

“Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. We have taken the necessary security precautions and are prepared to do whatever is necessary to protect America and Americans.” President George W. Bush

Our nation’s actions toward seeking justice and preventing any attacks of this scale from happening again came with quick notion, “Less than a week later (following the 9/11 attacks), Congress authorized the President to use military force ‘against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks,” (Yin). In essence, Congress gave the president the ability to use the military to seek out and detain terrorists responsible for 9/11, showing our country’s dedication to ending these attacks and those who initiated them for good. Overall, this tragic event revealed the need for stricter defense regulations against non-state actors (terrorists). For this reason, 9/11 was the catalyst for the beginning of the War on Terror and, consequently, the opening of Guantanamo Bay.

The attacks on September 11, 2001 by international terrorist that destroyed the twin towers brought a new American culture of policy change on international terrorism. At first there was a unilateral war on terror and hardening of the United States national borders. The drastic measures ranged from tightening airport security to creating a new governmental Department of Homeland Security with an almost limitless money basis (Anderson, 2003). International cooperation on the war on terror as President Bush adopted a unilateral approach to strike and invade Iraq (United States Code 22 Section 2656F(d) 2013). The assumption of a global terrorism ring brought in a shift around the world to the risk of being attacked. The United States bore the

Prior to 9/11there had been various terrorist attacks on Americans around the world and on American soil. However the events of September 11 intensely changed the United States Government’s approach towards terrorism. After September 11, the Bush Administration changed the previous American approach, which had primarily employed the combined tools of diplomatic cooperation, economic sanctions, and internationally coordinated law enforcement measures (Lee 2007: 137). Instead, the President declared in the aftermath of September 11 that the United States was engaged in a war on terrorism. In this war all terrorists who plotted against the United States and those who supported them were subject to American justice. This new