The War on Terror And the Need to Proceed with Diplomacy Essay

The War on Terror can readily be compared to WWI.  The following analysis will compare and contrast these two important historical occurrences.  It will also examine just a few of the many consequences of both.

In the following months and years, then president George W. Bush and the military began planning the retaliation. It quickly became clear that the president’s goal was not simply to defeat bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but to eliminate other terrorist groups as well. On September 20th, 2001 during a speech Bush said the following “Our ‘war on terror’ begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” (Bush, 2001)

“None of us will ever forget this day, yet we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world.” That was one of George W. Bush’s many emotional yet strong sayings in his speech of the tragic 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York city. His goal of unifying, making the country feel bonded together, was achieved through vivid and organized word choice. He chose these words to connect with the people of america's emotions and feelings, while also displaying authority and logical sense that terrorism is a threat to the world.

On September 11, 2015 the greatest act of terror known was committed at the World Trade Center, as well as the Pentagon. The terrorist group known as al-Quaeda coordinated an attack by hijacking U.S. commercial flights and sending two planes into the World Trade Center and another into the Pentagon. Luckily, a fourth flight was retaken by the passengers and could not reach its target, yet sadly it crashed in a Pennsylvanian valley. This event broke the hearts of American citizens and citizens worldwide, and the actions coming after wards would have a huge impact on America.

After the September 11 attacks, it was widely believed that the terrorists responsible were hiding throughout the hills and caves of Afghanistan. The United States chose to invade Afghanistan because it was searching for the terrorists. President Bush believed that the Taliban was hiding Osama Bin Laden and his people. The United States and our allies were successful at removing the threat during World War II, but while our military was able to overthrow the Taliban and capture some of Bin Laden’s associates, we are still involved in a war in the Middle East.

In 2002, President George W. Bush labeled Iraq, Iran, and North Korea an axis of evil.

By understanding the steps to prepare for countering and responding to a terrorist, the well-being of US national security interests can be promoted and the exposure to risk and susceptibility to experiencing harm can be efficiently managed for communities, families and individuals in the event of a terrorist incident. The welfare of US national security, citizens and property can be effectively safeguarded through the understanding of protection strategies administered collectively by local communities, families and individuals. Local emergency operations planning, family disaster planning, as well as self-protection planning each represent important protective measures, which serve to educate the nation and its citizens how to

That same night, then President George W. Bush, addressed the nation and called the attacks “evil, despicable acts of terror”. He declared that America and its allies would “stand together to win the war against terrorism.” The results of the attacks sparked several US initiatives to combat terror and bring justice to America. Just a few days later President Bush called for the “War on Terror” stating that, “Americans should not expect one battle but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen.” It was then that he launched the War in Afghanistan to find the leader

President George W. Bush delivered a televised address from the Oval Office at approximately 7 p.m. on the day that shook America , declaring, “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.”(“9/11 ATTACKS”) In a reference to the eventual U.S. military response he declared, “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”(“9/11 ATTACKS”)Operation Enduring Freedom, the American-led international effort to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and destroy Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network based there, began on October 7th. Within two months,

The policies that the United States has implement towards the War on Terror both conform and diverge from Machiavellian ideals in regards to foreign policy. Machiavelli states that to obtain and maintain power in a newly acquired state a ruler must “give offense…by imposing troops upon them”. The U.S. immediately acted towards this goal after the terrorist attacks in September 2001. The immediate action of the U.S. also correlate with the advice Machiavelli gives about the swiftness that must be taken to avoid war; “one should never allow a problem to develop in order to avoid war, for you end up not avoiding war, but deferring it to a time that will be less favorable”. By taking immediate action, the U.S. was able to take control of the situation at a time that allowed for the most support from the citizens of the U.S. along with other world powers. This was demonstrated by the surge of support that President Bush obtained immediately after the declaration of war.

Terrorism and the United States A cloud of anthrax spores looming in the sky of San Diego California

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.

The term “War on Terror” alone has created a psychological phenomenon that struck fear in the minds of many Americans. The Bush Administration elevated those three words to a national mantra that had impacted the American democracy destructively. It had impacted the American psyche as well as the United States’ standing in the world. In an article by Zibigniew Brzezinski, he explains, “Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.”

The immediacy and the primacy of any truly potent force is the ability to perpetuate itself. Sharp and energetic outbursts have their place, and can be known to have great effect-cataclysmic forces, despite their maximum destructive potential, are temporary in their total effects in relation to some absolute goal. In other words, they are generally limited in scope, and well defined in purpose; there is a tactical objective, which is usually consummated quickly. The more dreaded force creeps along, escalating incrementally, and while it may abide a strategic goal, or even a policy, it is generally open-ended. This sort of ambiguity I am referring to differs from the flexible tactical necessity in that strategic outcomes are very much