US Foreign Policy: The War On Terrorism

On September 11, 2001, a series of terrorist attacks were directed for the United States by means of four hijacked planes. Two of which hit the twin towers of the World Trade Center, one hit the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Department of Defense, and the fourth crashed in a field near Pittsburg after it was meant to hit the White House. The terror spread in the United States and brought concern and fear to the citizens. The impact of these terrorist attacks caused serious and detrimental damages within the country, and their result on the people were enormous; insecurity, helplessness, and susceptibility spread. Especially after the release of a videotape in which Osama Bin Laden, head of Al-Qaeda, admitted that he was responsible for the terrorist attacks. Hence, President George W, Bush declared the “war on terror” against all terrorists in the Arab world, specifically Afghanistan and Iraq. In the following paper, we will be discussing how the war on terror was waged, its effects on the target countries, and how it was perceived by political thinkers, where some saw it as a conspiracy theory against the Arab countries, and others believed the USA was the victim.

Terrorism is something that has shaken America for hundreds of years. One of the most crucial terrorist attacks was the “9/11” attack. After this attack, it made our nation’s leaders realize the danger of terrorism. After all the strikes on the U.S following the September 11 attack, the three branches of government has decided to place, enforce and interpret these terrorist laws to help protect our grounds and civilians; from President Obama and Bush’s proposals of the laws to the Supreme Court’s passing of these laws to the explanations of these new rules.

Foreign and domestic policies are not linear, rather the policies are connected in a circle, with each policy reinforcing the values of another. Domestic American terrorism in the prison and detention systems and governmental reforms are influenced by the mobilization and ethnocentrism abroad. The militarization internationally is justified by the domestic handling of the same cultural issues within the United State borders. The United States has strangely used a near Catch-22 to handle dilemmas. The United States has allowed perspective to become reality, whether with oneself or regarding issues abroad, specifically in the Middle East. Terrorism is the use or threat of fear for political or economical gain. An internal characteristic of terrorism is how dependent it is of perspective, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. To understand “terrorism,” a focus must be applied to the history, what drove an organization to commit such acts. Respectively, the Middle East has been a hotbed for the key word “terrorism,” especially because of 9/11. Subsequently, Muslims have been stigmatized by the United States as terrorists. The consequences spawned because of 9/11 require a look to the past to understand the present.

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.

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

Worldwide terrorism became the central focus of the United States’ foreign policy following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. At that time, the world saw the obvious hatred that other countries hold toward the U.S. and the extreme danger that came with it. Our eyes were opened to foreign issues that many of us were not previously aware of. President Bush’s initial response to the new danger was to overtake and reform two regimes, Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as to eliminate Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Instability still exists in these areas of the world, but there looms a much more immediate threat in the nuclear countries of Iran and North

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

Post September 11, 2001, the world politics has shifted dramatically. Primarily, the target of the world powers has been to eliminate the terrorist threat to the stability and the infrastructure of the world. United State of America (US) has been at the forefront of the fight against terrorism. It has adopted a Pro-Democratic foreign policy, as President Bush stated in 2003, “[The invasion of Iraq is] to change the Middle East so as to deny support for militant Islam by pressuring or transforming the nations and transnational systems that support it.” In addition to the pro-democratic foreign policy, US has adopted a realist mindset, more specifically, a neo-realistic mindset.

In terms of the thesis, ISIS could be attributed as an external threat to the U.S. both in terms of conflict of national interest as well as geostrategic descent. The nature of the threat could be attributed to the military nature, as the terror group spread terrors through military means. The last part is regarding the action taken (approaches and instrument used) with the U.S. allying with states which have similar interests (exterminating ISIS) as well as using the instrument of military power to conduct their campaign, which could be dubbed as the second part of their war on terror. This shows just how crucially defense policy as the pivot of this research and thesis. In utilization of answer, it could prove to be most vital, perhaps even more than the previous theories. However, the writer will still regard it as three theories which complement each other, in the ultimate objective of finding a solid answer to the research

But terrorism can be anywhere at anytime. the Inter Services Intelligence of Pakistan supported islamic

Terrorism has become a modern political and economic topic in America. It is the existence of Terrorists attacks in America that has changed the way people travels both domestic and foreign and also now viewed as an issue and conflicts that exist within the nation’s borders and domestically (Shemella, 373 ). The United States has since be a country with ideal ability to protect the many citizens from attacks and live in peace, but the infiltration of terrorist has kept a change in Americans heart (374 ). A significant amount of terrorism in American’ history reflects as being motivated by a distrust of American ideal values of democracy, or emerging today issue in which people of various races or backgrounds claimed to belong or loyalty group and or American system. In a nutshell, history teaches us that domestic terrorism can be explained as a violent tendency towards a movement and rights group to proof who or what is authentic in American system. On the other side it is a foreign terrorism or an extreme group with minds to attack and kill American citizens. I will discuss the different historical forms of terrorism groups in America since the time of Boston Tea Party to the 21st century American and global terrorism and what solutions and what it teach us in our own time.

In a world full of chaos and vast devastation, there seems to be no time or space to choose between being a lover and a fighter. There seems that we are no longer safe, and countries, states, cities, towns all live in terror. Terrorism has taken effect for quite some time now, The United States and the world has been involved with an uphill fight against the terrorist groups, named ISIS. The biggest question being dated to the past and recent leaders of the free world is, should the USA take further extremes and take on violence as a way to terminate ISIS? The expression ‘fight fire, with fire’’ has been carried for very long, and it seems to be the only option to this day against terrorism, a battle of violence and weapons against more violence

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.

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.

Kegley and Raymond stated: “The shape of the world’s future will be determined not only by changes in the objective conditions of world politics, but also by the meanings people ascribe to these conditions.” Terrorism is presently a major factor in international relations and has impacted the world to change in many significant ways. Terrorism is a political ideology that has been problematic in defining definitely because of its various interpretations around the world, as well as the fact that it is constantly evolving. Since the terrorist events of 9/11, the lives of many have been changed forever. A small group of individuals, which are a mere fraction of the population of the world, have managed to impact and shape the way international and domestic relations are looked at and handled. People question how secure and safe they feel due to uncertainty of public safety because of events such as 9/11. The war on terrorism in the 21st century has certainly and inevitably changed the landscape for global politics. However, the relationship between terrorism and global politics is troublesome and in ways problematic to describe accurately. Both terrorism and global politics individually are complicated phenomenon. It is erroneous to propose that one is responsible for the other or vice versa, but they are inextricably and inevitably linked. In the study of international relations, there are multiple theories and theoretical perspectives. In this essay, realism and liberalism