The Aria of War: Justifications for the Pursuit of National Security at Any Price

September 11th catalyzed a major revival in the American public’s concern for domestic national security, which had dropped off following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The attacks, which were the first on American soil since Pearl Harbor, prompted American leaders to respond with swift and ambitious military action. At this time, the public perceived security of American territory against “terrorism”–an intentionally broad and emotionally charged term– as its chief national interest. Following the attack, President Bush announced the launch of a “global war on terror”, an international effort to combat terrorist groups and the nations that harbor them–prompting him to establish the Department of Homeland Security later that year.

The shocking tragedy on September 11, 2001 altered the course of American national security. Prior to the 9/11 attacks, homeland security was rarely debated as a hot topic, even within the small circle of policy elites (Kamarck, 2013, p. 34). The only prior homeland attack on America was Pearl Harbor and this was not on U.S. mainland. Many Americans were shocked that such a tragedy could occur on American soil and they are still shocked to this day. People are still recovering from this tragic event. The government knew that the country’s enemies still posed an enormous threat to the nation’s security. In response to the events that took place on 9/11, the United States Congress passed the USA/Patriot Act, which intensified the surveillance powers held by the federal government through the National Security Agency (NSA) and other federal agencies. This act increased national airport security procedures, metro security in most major U.S. cities, and extended the government’s capacity to spy on citizens.

In this persuasive essay, Charles Krauthammer immediately speaks on the steady demise of the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda and how the war on terror was an “unconventional war by an unconventional enemy” that required an unconventional approach to win (Krauthammer 706). Krauthammer states that there has not been a major terrorist attack in the United States of America in over a decade. In turn, this supposedly demonstrates to the audience that the defensive apparatus created by President George W. Bush to counter terrorism has been very effective in getting its purpose done, and that is to protect the American citizens.

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

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.

Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the United States (US) government has focused on terrorism as the biggest threat to stability and national security in the homeland. There have been controversial laws enacted which tested an individual’s Constitutional rights versus the security of the country as a whole, military engagements in foreign countries designed to stop terrorism overseas before reaching the homeland, and a number of law enforcement and government initiatives implemented to identify and investigate terrorists before they commit acts of terrorism or pursue material support activities in support of terrorism. Federal law enforcement agencies have been criticized recently for failing to predict when homegrown violent extremists

Facts: Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen was detained by the Northern Alliance forces on the battle fields of Afghanistan in late 2001. Hamdi was then consider to be an enemy combatant, in other words a traitor, in which he was held by the Department of Defense. Hamdi’s father then, petition for a federal district court for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his son had no wrong and was unlawfully held. However, the court countered with, “they had the right to detain him due to war time”. In addition, the president, George W. Bush took action and said to use “all and appropriate force” and those designated as “enemy combatant”.

The intent of this policy memorandum is to propose that policy on counterterrorism in the United States of America be manufactured. Defining counterterrorism in a Western democratic sense is extremely difficult. This is due the uniqueness of each terrorism case. According to Jason Rineheart, what makes this defining process so difficult is that these democracies must take into consideration certain civil liberties and the rule of law. As stated by the U.S. Army Field Manual, counterterrorism can be defined as offensive actions taken in efforts to “prevent, deter, preempt, and respond to terrorism.” What is most important when defining counterterrorism is the focus on its offensive nature. It is also necessary to focus on the nature

Fourteen years ago the United States was not officially engaged in one overseas war. We extradited partial the amount of people we do nowadays. Our investigation state was a meager portion of its present size. No single figure since the Second World War has made so profound an impact on world events as Osama bin Laden. Sept. 11 changed America fundamentally, far more so than outsiders realized at the time. For Americans it genuinely was a new Pearl Harbor, an attack on the homeland that made them feel vulnerable for the first time in sixty years. It twisted a management with quasi-isolationist propensities into one committed to robust interference overseas. America’s involvement in the War on Terror — lead by the Sept.

As our readings covered this week, the attacks on September 11, 2001 opened up a whole new world of requirements that are needed in order to defeat the terrorist threat the world is faced with now. The domestic threat that creeped up onto the shores of the United States on that fateful day raised significant concern on how it could prevented in the future. As James Burch mentioned in our reading, “the very term domestic intelligence raises significant questions, as well as concerns about civil liberties” (Burch 2010, 184). He went on to state even further that even though domestic intelligence may raise concerns about civil liberties, “it also supports an equally vital need – the preservation of the nation-state” (Burch 2010, 184). The US was forced to adapt and by doing so had to create a new set of rules and put certain safeguards and methods in

The events on September 11,2001 in my eyes destabilized the United States for a brief moment, and radical Muslim groups from the middle east became an immediate emergence for the U.S. and its national security. The never ending growing number of radical groups and explosions of information obscured the lines between strife, typical, atypical low intensity conflicts. Circulation of information in and near the battlefield will push the limits of the U.S., policy makers and militarily as well, through the middle east and beyond. This will be an inevitable challenge and emerging threat for the United States.

When the September 11, 2001 attacks occurred the United States responded in a manner which was seen as a traditional reaction to such an attack; it used its overwhelming superior military to invade the nation of Afghanistan. As Afghanistan was the operating base of the terrorist group responsible for the attacks, Al Qaeda, the invasion all but destroyed the group's operating capacity. But in response to the United States' apparent victory the terrorists have re-organized themselves into a looser confederation and turned to alternative methods of finance and operation. One could say that the success of the American military's answer to the September 11th attacks have created a new environment in which terrorists currently operate. This includes the use of the internet, unconventional alliances with international criminal organizations, as well the inception of the "lone wolf" terrorist. Faced with these new type of threats, the United States and its allies must find a way to identify and deal with them.

When the attack happened on 9/11, it shattered American’s perception that they were safe within the United States, and basically untouchable. The United States has oceans on the majority of its boarders and where land connects there is either weak or friendly neighbors (Howard & Hoffman, 2012). This helped create that illusion. Since 9/11 policymakers and American citizens have been forced to fight a new kind of war. A war that is more elusive, operates in the shadows from a great distance, but can also be right among us with secret cells and aliases. This new war also takes advantage of America’s industrial and technological advantages, using globalization to their advantage. In addition, may terrorist organizations are becoming more violent, have more financial resources, are well trained and almost impossible to penetrate making America at risk.

Modern terrorists have come to the realization that “they cannot defeat the United States in a conventional war, but they can impose significant pain through acts of terrorism,” (Stern, p.5). After a century of American military, economic, and social success, the US has been elevated to the forefront of the global community. A defense budget of $401.7 billion makes the United States the dominant military force in the world, (2005 US Federal Budget). Furthermore, our history of success has established a general sentiment of invincibility among American citizens, and an attack on our civilian population would have tremendous ramifications, as was seen with the occurrence of September 11th. However, unlike al-Qaeda in Afghanistan under the Taliban, a nuclear attack may come from a group that does not enjoy the sponsorship of a state, making retaliation quite complicated. This sense of anonymity is another issue of terrorists with nukes that trumps a state with such capabilities. In the case of a state, there is a particular, defined, and easily identifiable party

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.