War On Terror Essay

Front 1

Intro

Back 1

9/11 was a transformative event for the US in terms of profound implications it had on the international security environment.

-Bush declared all our war on global terror = robust approach

-WOT began with UN backed invasion (immediately Oct. 01) & expanded to include invasion of Iraq (Mar. 03) after some initial gains

Front 2

Intro: Expansion accompanied costs of war & led to realization

Back 2

-Expansion accompanied costs of war: damaged US's international reputation, created a sense of illegitimacy, and was counter-productive.

-Led to realization (change): Terrorism as an international problem that the US could not combat alone

Front 3

Intro: realization by Obama Admin & closing sentence

Back 3

-this was realized by Obama Admin that adopted a more multilateral approach to security that took globalization into account.

-9/11 contributed to redefining the global security enviro by prompting the US to finally realign its national security policy to more effectively counter the threat of terrorism, 10years after the attacks themselves.

Front 4

Para 1: BG to war & aims of WOT (little experience/ transformed US view of terrorism)

Back 4

-US had little experience with terrorism

-Consequently, US Govt, was extremely perturbed with attack, particularly as the sole superpower in the international system

-9/11 changed strategic thinking and transformed American view of terrorism & how to respond to such a security threat.

Front 5

Para 1: BG to war & aims of WOT (Bush Admin)

Back 5

-Bush: "A war which will required a new way of thinking"

-Bush Admin immediately reacted with violence in 2001, terminating the Taliban regime in Afg. and dispersing the AQ movement.

-Bush's responses after 9/11 was to declare an all out war on global terrorism opposed to just AQ.

Front 6

Para 1: BG to war & aims of WOT (Bush's Aims)

Back 6

-Defeat Bin Laden, destroy AQ and terrorism (demand Taliban in Afg. stopped harbouring AQ leadership)
-Strengthen counter terrorism efforts and defend US citizens nationally and internationally

Front 7

Para 2: Gains of the war (High point - response to 9/11 in line with Bush Admin)

Back 7

-High point for WOT in first 6 months of invasion in Afg. - Taliban regime terminated successfully and AQ dispersed.

-Response to the 9/11 attacks = in line with neo conservative overtones of the Bush Admin - believed in a "new American century" with the US playing a worldwide civilizing role as the sole super power in the international system.

Front 8

Para 2: Gains of the war (support was high)

Back 8

-Support was high for the invasion from both US citizens & in terms of international public sympathy

-(French newspaper: "We are all Americans now")

Front 9

Para 2: Gains of the war (closing sentence)

Back 9

-US looked to be taking firm (but fair) stance against terrorism

-However, expansion of war aims that broadened targets beyond AQ, and towards "rogue states" triggered international unease.

Front 10

Para 3: Costs of war (footage = illegitimacy progressed)

Back 10

-Initial wave of horror & sympathy was replaced with sense of illegitimacy as was progressed.

-TV footage showing widespread civilian causalities & human rights abuses

-Eg. Guantanamo Bay -terrorists kept in almost indefinite detention - damaged the US's international reputation & appalled many people.

Front 11

Para 3: Costs of war (Bush Admin losing values of democracy)

Back 11

-Bush Admin placed tremendous emphasis on "winning war on terror" but began to neglect the values which distinguish a democracy from its authoritarian counterparts - respect human rights -> very thing Bin Laden wanted to destroy

Front 12

Para 3: Costs of war (WOT failure to give evidence)

Back 12

-WOT's legitimacy further damaged by the US's inability to convince the rest of the international community that Iraq had been involved in 9/11 = failed to find any weapons of mass destruction or evidence of a relationship between Sadam & Bin Laden.

-Thus the invasion of Iraq 2002 seemed unjustified (was unsanctioned by the UN)

Front 13

Para 3: Costs of war (WOT counterproductive)

Back 13

-WOT= ultimately counter productive - more than 10 years on and troops still in Afg. and AQ still a threat.

-In Iraw insurgency developed

Front 14

Para 3: Costs of war (casualties)

Back 14

-Costs of war

-120,000 in Iraq/ Afg

-30,000 US troops injured, 4000 killed.

Front 15

Para 3: Costs of war (closing sentence)

Back 15

-US strategy based on assumption that pre-emptive force and reliance on US primacy would successfully weigh down AQ.

-However, the struggle against terrorism is a political event, which cannot be won by purely military means and requires an international response.

Front 16

Para 4: Extent WOT altered US foreign policy and impacted global security

Back 16

- The outcomes of the ineffective WOT led to the realization that the US would have to broaden its approach to national security and that a fundamental assessment of US foreign policy was required.

Front 17

Para 4: Extent WOT altered US foreign policy and impacted global security (Obama Admin)

Back 17

-This as recognized by the Obama Admin - showed an inclination to adopt a multilateral approach to FP, which recognized the impact of globalization.

-Realigned US national security policy to more effectively counter the threat of terrorism and helped repair US international image in recent years (recognized US did not have sole power to determine world's future)

Front 18

Para 4: Extent WOT altered US foreign policy and impacted global security (Paul Rogers)

Back 18

-WOT = example of what Paul ROgers called "liddism" - keeping the lid on security threats without recognizing or understanding the roots of the insecurity.

Front 19

Para 4: Extent WOT altered US foreign policy and impacted global security (rethinking of current approaches favoured by Bush)

Back 19

-Experience after 9/11 supports an approach to global security that argues a rethinking of current approaches favoured by the Bush Admin (where primary focus was on military instruments) and instead points to an approach rooted in "sustainable security"

Front 20

Conclusion

Back 20

-Bush's WOT was deeply controversial to the 9/11 attacks that raised questions as to the nature of terrorism - and US influence had a significant impact on manipulating the international security environment.

-It was acknowledged that a broad approach to national security would be needed, that into account the globalized world.