Failings of US war on terror

Many innocent citizens fell victims to this attack. Besides, ending the lives of innocent civilians, the terrorists committed this act to end the way of life of innocent Americans. In the wake of this attack, the United States started a global war on terrorism which has been demonstrated through the use of military force, and efforts to reform the policy of the Middle East. However, by 2017, it is evident that the approach being used by the United States to fight terrorism has destabilized nations in the Middle East as little is being done to ensure that the United States is protected from global terrorism. The United States’ war on terror seems to be failing. S should stop the use of military approach and nation-building in the fight against terror.

Rather, the country should push its regional allies to challenge international terrorist networks as the United States focuses on the law enforcement and intelligence paradigm for fighting the against the American nation. America’s approach towards terrorism seems to have created more terrorists than it appears to have eliminated and therefore, terrorism will continue to reign unless the nation radically alters its course. The United States Strategy on the War on Terror As it has been noted by many observers, the September 11 attacks forced the Bush administration to conduct radical reforms on the approach of the United States to combat terrorism. Before these attacks, the government of the United States considered domestic terrorism as a law enforcement issue while global terrorism was considered as a cold threat (Dallek 1983).

In the long term, the security of the nation would be attained by eliminating the underlying conditions that the Bush administration thought had initially contributed to the rise of terrorism. Such conditions included: corruption, ethnic and religious conflict, political and social oppression and lack of economic opportunities (Eland 1998). The Strategy of Military Intervention After the attacks that took place on September 11, 2001, the most fundamental component of the international War of Terror by the United States was comprised of a direct military approach. The choice to combat terrorism through the use of military force, rather than using the traditional framework of law enforcement has had a significant impact on the War on Terror. In addition, it has helped establish its outcomes. The primary objective of military approach has been to exterminate extremists, destroy their groups and eradicate their capability to carry out terrorist acts (Findley & Young 2012).

An important basis of this approach was the view that the U. S could not wait unless the threat of terror was fully developed. Rather, the U. S needed to preventively begin striking through the use of military force. S has also launched drone strikes against the al Qaeda organization in Yemen in the Arabian Peninsula since 2010 and more recently has offered assistance using military force and intelligence support to the Saudi Arabian government while it involves itself in supporting of the besieged government of Yemen. Obama provoked a slight change at the strategic level. Besides the constant war on the Taliban among other jihadist organizations situated in Afghanistan as well as the main efforts against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, the U.

S under the Obama administration launched air attacks using drones as well as through Special Forces operations in Syria, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen. Furthermore, Obama pulled out U. Furthermore, the United States started a continued diplomatic campaign to enlist foreign aid in destroying any remaining terrorist groups with global reach. The officials in the United States insisted that the campaign would be extended and cautioned that military intervention against suspected terrorist groups might continue following the initial attack on al Qaeda together with its Taliban hosts. The September 11 attack on the U. S did not change every characteristic of the world politics yet it underscored a number of aspects of the American foreign policy that have gained inadequate attention in recent years.

Such a lesson contributes the knowledge in the immediate campaign against the al Qaeda and the succeeding efforts to minimize the overall danger from world terrorism. On several occasions, the anti-American terrorist groups staged costly attacks on the American forces abroad. However, past attempts on the U. S soil proved unsuccessful in doing extensive damage and possibly added to the sense of contentment. Besides, the 1990s experienced a period of continued economic growth, which reinforced the confidence of the U. S and made it easy for them to bear global burdens without experiencing fiscal pinch. Even though such impacts normally spread to the adjacent nations, the problem of failed states like Somalia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Afghanistan has often been viewed as a humanitarian issue (Piazza 2008).

As well, they can be a major concern to the security of a nation (Nye 2004). The Taliban government, as well as the al Qaeda movement, emerged from the prolonged civil conflict within Afghanistan. Additionally, bin Laden has in the past used failed nations for refuge since the mid-1990s. Certainly, if Afghanistan has been ruled by a capable and moderate government in the past, bin Laden would never have been able to seek refuge in that country. When a detained prisoner hopes to be released from the custody of the government, a court order of habeas corpus demands that the prison officials produce the prisoner to allow the court determine whether the prisoner has been detained lawfully (Fogarty 2005). This indicates that the writ of habeas corpus is a practical tool that ensures the protection of prisoners against any unlawful imprisonment when a petitioner seeks the court order, the court in charge of reviewing the writ is called upon the investigate the legitimacy of the detention of that petitioner.

On a policy basis, Justice Jackson spoke of the threat that could emerge from permitting enemies to access courts belonging to the courts in times of war (Katyal 2003). Jackson argued that permitting the writ to be equally accessible to the citizens of America and its enemies would interfere with the war effort and bring help and comfort to the enemy. As well, Jackson was concerned that extending the court order to enemy prisoners could result in numerous frivolous lawsuits, thus clogging the legal system of America (Katyal 2003). S is going against the international law. Besides, disregarding the rule of law, there have been other harmful unplanned consequences of the Administration’s policy in the detention camp. This has thus fueled the rising world anti-Americanism that tends to weaken the influence as well as its effectiveness.

It has also, degraded the domestic support base of the Administration and denied the U. S the moral high ground it requires to facilitate world human rights in the future (Yin 2005). xiii). New York: Knopf. Eland, I. Does US Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism?. Cato Institute Foreign Policy Briefing, 50, pp. P. Guantanamo Bay--Undermining the Global War on Terror. ARMY WAR COLL CARLISLE BARRACKS PA. Frakt, D. J. Holcomb, J. B. , McMullin, N. R. , Pearse, L. K. Causes of death in US Special Operations Forces in the global war on terrorism: 2001–2004. Annals of surgery, 245(6), p. Horgan, J. and Taylor, M. S. Soft power and American foreign policy. Political science quarterly, 119(2), pp. Piazza, J. A. Walt, S. M. Beyond bin Laden: Reshaping US foreign policy.