The War on Terrorism, has been a hot topic in contemporary media and research, giving rise to many opinions and speculations. The issue remains acute in the light of continuing evidence of planned or aborted terrorist attacks, the frequency of terror acts and the polarization of many societies on the subject.
This essay will explore the coverage of this issue and the resulting themes in the covered sources. Starting from an assortment of summaries of various sources, the essay will proceed to the exploration of various themes recurring in the explored sources.On September 12, 2001, less than 24 hours after the terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, NATO invoked Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and declared the attacks to be an attack against all 19 NATO member countries. CIA’s National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia Paul R.
Pillar in the New York Times publication explores the issues that emerged after George Tenet's resignation as director of central intelligence after September 11th attacks.The author tries to defend the CIA stating that its repeated warnings about the approaching threat were ignored by the society. He also states that today, in the light of 9/11 attacks that reshaped our understanding of security, the public needs to re-evaluate the relevance of national intelligence estimates, understanding that policy changes will be triggered not by information from intelligence services, but from disasters of a large scale.Pillar also insists on the necessity to educate the US public on issues of international terrorism.
In the following months, NATO took a wide range of measures to respond to the threat of terrorism. On November 22, 2002, the member states of the EAPC decided on a Partnership Action Plan against Terrorism which explicitly states that "EAPC States are committed to the protection and promotion of fundamental freedoms and human rights, as well as the rule of law, in combating terrorism".The invasion of Afghanistan is seen as the first action of this war, and initially involved forces from the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Afghani Northern Alliance. Since the initial invasion period, these forces have been augmented by troops from Germany, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
In 2005-2006, Canadian forces there will be increased to over 2000 troops. Canada also supported coalition efforts in Operation Archer, Operation Apollo, Operation Altair, and Operation Athena as part of the ongoing support for Operation Enduring Freedom.The Canadian government however, does not recognize Iraq as part of the informal network of support for the attacks of 9/11 and as such, has declined to send Forces to that theatre of operations, although scores of them are on assignment to US Forces - mostly assisting in AWACS operations. (Richard Miniter.
October 2005) However, support for the United States cooled when America made clear its determination to invade Iraq in late 2002.The United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, South Korea, Poland, and Australia joined the "coalition of the willing", unconditionally supporting U. S. -led military action. Other countries, including Canada, Germany, France, Pakistan, and New Zealand opposed military action and blocked American attempts to pass a UN resolution explicitly backing military action. Countries that did not participate in the invasion but who have made themselves parts of the reconstruction and peacekeeping efforts include Ukraine, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Romania.
Many of the 'Coalition of the willing' countries also have sent troops to Afghanistan, particular neighboring Pakistan which has disowned its earlier support for the Taliban and contributed tens of thousands of soldiers to the conflict. For Canada, although it recognizes that the United States may be subject to further terrorist attacks, the country however feels that there is no terrorist threat to itself in the future. But as Anna Morgan in her article in the Washington Post discussed, it is obvious that Canada is a strategic place for any future terrorist attack.These facts are explained clearly by Morgan in a very well-written journalistic piece. Morgan speaks about Canadian politicians in the following terms: “…they’ve been using that familiar demon –the United States and all its evils- as the fuel to heat Canadian voters to frenzy.
(…) And all the while, they’re studiously ignoring Canada’s own homegrown issues. ” Morgan further declared that Canadians are in an anti-American mood in lieu of the attack on Iraq and they love to emphasize the American transgressions.Although some perceive the threat of terrorism particularly on America as somewhat over hyped and exaggerated by the media, it is nevertheless been confirmed by several prominent officials of Intelligence agencies. In the Testimony of Robert S.
Mueller, III, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Before the Senate Committee on Intelligence of the United States Senate, the director lists the most important threats to the US national security, giving emphasis of the threat of the Al Qaeda network as the most imminent threat to the US.HAMAS, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Lebanese Hezbollah are cited as other groups that represent danger to the US and may be conducting undercover preparation for terrorist attacks inside the US. Added to this is the threat of domestic terrorism including right-wing Patriot movement and anti-abortion extremists. The director proceeds to a more or less complete list of internal and external threats, concluding with suggested ways to step up FBI’s efforts. Morgan on the other hand is very worried about the war on terrorism and suggested the following about it.Morgan is really worried about the war on terrorism so she suggested the following about it: “Those problems may not be as exaggerated as some Americans think they are –just recently Montana’s Sen.
Conrad Burns reiterated, then retracted, the popular myth that the 9/11 hijackers got into the United States through Canada –but they are certainly real. (…) The judge at Mahjoub’s (who worked for Osama bin Laden) first hearing quoted from a report issued by the Canadian Security Intelligence Services that “there are more terrorist cells operating in Canada than in any other country outside the Middle East”. (Morgan, 2006). The question of the extent of terrorists’ plans and coverage remains to be further seen. As the FBI Director Muller acknowledged, there is a real threat of terrorism not only against the United States but against other western countries as well. Definitely, there is a need to coordinate efforts and emphasize the importance of international cooperation in addressing the threat of terrorism and the war against it.
Even if the support for such is not so strong following the attack of the United States in Iraq, supporters however justify the attack on Iraq saying that the that war could act as a deterrent against terrorists, demonstrating to potential recruits that they would face certain retribution. This argument may hold less water in reference to suicide terrorism, or when terrorists expect to become martyrs, but can be argued to deter such attacks by weakening the logistical base which provides martyrs with explosives and points them toward effective targets. Gary C. Schroen.
May 2005). In lieu of the US attack on Iraq, wherein the US attacked Iraq on the basis of the reports that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction (as supported by President Bill Clinton in 1998) and ultimately declare democracy on Iraq which has been under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein for a long time, even if there are “leak” that the Bush did not attack Iraq on the basis of the danger of weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein had allegedly harbored.In Michael Melcher’s special report in the Guardian, it disproves Bush’s term for “war on terrorism” The author refers to the blueprint produced in September 2000 by the then US Administration involving the creation of a coalition aiming at overthrowing Saddam Hussein. The document prepared by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), in the author’s words, “shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power” (Melcher, 2003).Melcher connects the passivity of the US leadership in averting 9/11 attacks with this decision. Needless to say, the article is critical of the US desire to go to war with Iraq, as well as Britain’s decision to follow.
Some analysts however argue that democracy in the Middle East will elevate Islamists, including radicals, who will use democratic institutions to gain power but then implement their autocratic agenda. Democracy can also lead to instability.In short, things may get worse before they get better, which may be bad news for the US. Many however believe that in the long run increased democratic governance or the break up of static autocracies will lead to a better outcome than the status quo even if the emerging governments initially oppose U. S.
policies. Some furthermore argue that any type of somewhat democratic government would find more common ground with the U. S. than the existing ones even if approach was gradual and difficult.It can be noted though that after the September 11 attack and the subsequent attack of the US on Iraq, there has been no terrorist attack after that. As it is always the number of death that has been questioned and targeted by those opposing the war, supporters of the war on terrorism cited that the casualty toll among coalition forces between the wars (less than 2,500) is meager compared to past foreign wars.
The death toll in the "War on Terrorism" is almost 200 times small than that of World War II, and about 50 times smaller than Vietnam. (Thomas L. Friedman. August 2005)Subsequently, there has been certain improvements and achievements outside Afghanistan and Iraq - Libya gave up its nuclear weapons program, saying it was scared after seeing United States action in Iraq, Lebanese protestors drew out much of the Syrian occupation and is making strides toward Democracy, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have held (though questionable) limited elections, and Jordan has recently declared a "War on Terrorism".
Whether or not the threat of terrorism is imaginary, countries around the world must see to it that they take extra precautions in securing that such attacks would not happen again.As the debate of terrorism will continue, it is better to take note of existing international provisions or treaties which define acts and offenses that are considered as terrorism and against humanity. Concrete measures must be taken by the government in order to overcome terrorism and suggest steps to increase the effectiveness of such measures. One likely provision is NATO’s basic texts, Partnership Action Plan Against Terrorism states the decision of EAPC (the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council) member states to support the common action plan against terrorist attacks.The states expressed their commitment to “the protection and promotion of fundamental freedoms and human rights, as well as the rule of law, in combating terrorism” (NATO, 2003). After outlining the objectives and goals of the joint effort, the plan also develops the mechanism of coordination including political consultations, information sharing, especially with regard to arms, scientific cooperation and civil emergency planning.
[NATO. (2003, January 22). Partnership Action Plan against Terrorism. Preventing further terrorist attacks is better than those repelling it with the use of arms and attacking directly as it would be then less expensive and more lives will be saved than having to go to war for retribution. The number of innocent lives affected will be lessened if not totally eradicated and the growth of terrorist groups especially the top priorities of the intelligence agencies. Conclusion: War on terror continues to occupy an important place in the lives and actions of people throughout the world.
Naturally, US and its European allies who have become victims to large-scale terrorist attacks are seeing themselves at the greatest risk of their repetition and therefore devote the greatest effort to the need to overcome this threat. Although 9/11 attacks were most surely a major breakthrough in our understanding of global terror groupings and their capabilities, a considerable effort is still need to ensure an adequate response and corresponding level of public awareness on the issue.At this point, the very concept of the “war on terrorism” remains controversial and subject to dispute, as some claim that the metaphor emerged in order to trick the society into believing the US and other nations are under imminent threat of terrorist attacks. As terrorists step up their efforts and may soon get hold of weapons of mass destruction, the efforts of individual nations are no longer enough to overcome the threat.
Terrorists are operating across border in strictly disciplined, unified organisations, and regional blocs and international organisations have to counteract with similar coordination. These efforts still need improvement and greater coordination to ensure that they exceed and warn terrorists’ plans. At the same time, increased funding is necessary to enable security professionals to carry out their functions with greater efficiency. Overall, the war on terror remains one of the most important tasks in many nations of the world.
