The War On Terror : An Unprecedented Way Of Politics And Conducing Conflicts

Over the last couple of decades, terrorism has risen from near-obscurity to become a commonly held fear among members of society. Up until the late 90’s, incidents of terrorism never rose past 500. The numbers spiked the years following, reaching over 6,500 in 2006. (Mohamed, Roser) No longer can we dismiss acts of terrorism as irrelevant or isolated incidents. At first glance, terrorism seems irrational with motives too diverse to narrow down. For the sake of our lives and the safety of future generations, we must find ways to explain terrorism and discover ways we can stop its reign of terror in modern society. Answering these questions call for an examination and application of rationalist, culturalist, and structuralist approaches, as well as thorough investigation into a mixed design case study regarding the issue.

On the date September 11, 2001, the world stood still and watched the horror of terrorism unfold in the heart and soul of the United States of America. For the world, this was just the beginning of the terrorist attacks that will take place. In my essay I will carefully evaluate the measures taken by Governments to stop the terror attacks from happening, through my paper I will discuss the United Nations (UN) and global counter-terrorism, summarising the facts on the 9/11 attacks, furthermore the connection between Muslims, United

The dilemma facing state leaders for the past decades has been whether to respond to terrorism through a criminal justice approach or a more involved military approach. The criminal justice approach treats terrorism as a law-and-order problem in which the main burden is placed on the judiciary and police. In contrast, the military approach treats terrorism as a perilous threat to the national security of the state, which can only be countered with military force and wartime procedures. The argument of this paper is that military procedures are not warranted in dealing with terrorism because the terror threat is not lethal or influential enough to threaten our democracy, and even if it was, military action has proven itself to be so fraught with problems and costly risks in past interventions that continued use of such a tactic would not only harm our national security, but also could precipitate the fall of the American Empire. Instead, law-enforcement has proven itself to be an efficient counter-terrorism tool that results in the capturing of terrorists, acquisition of intelligence, and spurring of cooperation with allied countries.

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.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety”- Benjamin Franklin. “Political liberty consists in security or, at least, in the opinion one has of one's security”-Montesquieu. On September 11th, 2001, the United States was devastated by terrorist attacks that destroyed infrastructure and killed thousands of civilians. This was arguably the most severe attack on the United States and with it came a panic and fear for future aggregations. Soon after the September 11th terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington D.C., Congress rushed into action and quickly passed antiterrorism legislation known as the USA Patriot Act. The title of the act is a ten-letter acronym [USA PATRIOT] that stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. The act was understood to give the government sweeping authority to take necessary safety measures like conducting electronic surveillance via the Internet. The initial Patriot Act was passed by President George W. Bush in 2001. On May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama signed the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, which is a four-year extension of three key provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act: roving wiretaps, searches of business records also known as the "library records provision", and conducting surveillance of "lone wolves". Lone

Throughout the history of our great country we have had very tragic incidents happen, and things we wish we could forget and discard them from our history just like other certain nations. One of the many tragic historical events are assassinations of important political figures and pop icons. Or other events like 9/11 and the Columbine school massacre which drastically affected the future of our country. On 9/11 we were thrusted into the war on terror, and for Columbine we had to make gun control for a nation that is so hell bent on the second amendment that it’s still hard to get legislation through. As for assassinations, we look at people like Lincoln. This great man who did so much for this country yet had to die due to the outlook on slavery. Although when you really look at his death it was not as bad because the Civil War had already ended and we were on our way to reconstruct the South. But when you look at someone like JFK it is very drastic. At a time where tensions were rising with the threat of communism and the Civil Rights Movement and him being a young president who a lot of people resonated with, that it was such a huge hit on America at this influential point in time that made his death a tragedy. This really shaped the way Americans thought about their government, and whether what they tell us is the truth or a bag of lies or fact versus fiction. The assassination of one of the most

The events surrounding the September 11 attacks on the United States of America have often been shrouded in a cloud of controversy and mystery, with no one individual seemingly able to apprehend the “true” details of the terror attack. Many proposed theories have been brought forth, the most widely accepted being that of co-ordinated attacks by terrorist organisation “Al-Qaeda”. “9/11”, as the event is commonly known, is simply one of many global terrorism attacks that have seemingly consumed the contemporary world. Thus, it is up to the acts and responsibilities of governments and legal organisations to undertake action in attempt to achieve justice and equality throughout the world, ensuring the safety of all people. Although, it is

Following the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 President Bush inspired the term War on Terror that expressed the fight against terrorist groups. Subsequently, the use of armed aerial drones has become the United States signature attack for counter terrorism. After the attack the Bush administration began the target killing of suspects involved in terrorist attacks (Rowman& Littlefield 2016 p.13). A variation of target killing is signature strikes in which suspected militants and anyone considered a “possible” suspect is targeted based on their behavioral characteristics. In the case of a signature strike the target is unknown. Although drones are not new, the emergence of armed drones remains the topic of many debates. The application

Many victims have been harmed from the terrorism for a long time. It is impossible for victims who are effected by the terrorism to live safely. Cruel terrorist group even attack female and children. The incidence of terrorism is increasing in the world. It is big problem in the world because countries worry about their citizen from the terrorism. The United States and other countries stuck to continue the war on terror. The war on terrorism has fought for a long time. The terrorism has had long history. Since ancient countries had existed, terrorism has been always with countries which are not only advanced country but also underdeveloped country. The World state always prepares to prevent from attacking of the terrorist. Each countries concludes conference such as international environment which is related defense of state. If one countries is attacked by the terrorist group, others could support it. However, methods of the terrorism are evolved over the long time such as an economic terrorism, a suicide bombing, cyber terror, and etc. The terrorist group as Al-Qaeda attacks innocent people thorough different ways. The terrorist group attacks these countries citizen and threatens countries with the hostage. Some countries such as Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Libya support the terror. The United States has never taken no prisoner with the threat since the 9/11

Drones are an effective counter insurgency tool deployed extensively throughout the world, especially by clandestine intelligence organizations often with the help of the country’s respective Air Force. Not only do they serve as an effective weapon, they minimize human

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.

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 terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 altered the environment of international relations, as the world saw first hand the damage a non-state actor can inflict on a regional hegemon. While non-state actors have always existed, for example maritime pirates or private mercenaries, the events of 9/11 provided non-state actors, in the form of terrorist organizations, the platform needed to expand their influence. Despite the urgency posed by the rise of non-state actors, the field of international relations continues to use an interstate framework to analyze conflict. This is the natural result of a long history of state-centered analysis that came to formal fruition post-WWI and dominated through the Cold War. Even after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, this discipline remained intact. However, as most conflicts today involve non-state actors, such as terrorist organizations in the mountains of Afghanistan and pirates off the coast of Somalia, this state-centric framework is deteriorating.

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.