Global war on terrorism US
In this case, the government had made a lot of enemies, among them, rogue states, terrorist organizations, WMD (weapons of mass destruction) proliferators, national and regional scope and terrorism itself. This means also that there was the creation of monolith threat and in doing this subordinated clarity in strategy which has been getting from foreign policy and this set the US on gratuitous and open-ended with nonstates and state organizations which have caused no harm to the United States. One specific problem has been the connection of the al-Qaeda and Sadam Hussein administration in Iraq which poses a challenge to the security in the United States. This was called a miscalculation because the US intelligence failed to differentiate the two in character, the level of threat, susceptibility in order to take any military action.
A strategy which is sound requires threat discrimination and harmonizing reasonably to the means and the ends. In a news item during the Bush administration, a reporter for the New York Times noted that, "From the very start of the American occupation of Iraq, at least some in the Bush administration saw an opportunity to curtail the influence of Iran's radical Shiite leaders by producing an alternative, moderate center of Shiite Islam that would effectively neuter Tehran in ideological, political and strategic terms. This was abundantly clear to Iran's clerical rulers, whose paramount priority since they seized power in 1979 has been to preserve their revolution and their grip on their own country. " Has this aspiration by some Bush policy-makers proven true or has some other reality developed? What does this observation say about the nature of war? The Iran's religious regime which is radical in nature plays a significant role in Iraq which is their neighbors, where in this case seeks to drive out the coalition forces and all the Americans and this case cementing the Shiite allies, being in leadership, and preventing any means of consolidation and paving way of stable democracy which will cause a threat t the theocratic leadership system in Iran which have been a long term.
The most recent events were the holding and kidnapping of 15 sailors of British origin and some of the marines in a territory of Iran waters was a clear indication of war. Tehran, on the other hand, is seeking to make good relationship with the Iran government while on the other side cementing allies to the Shiite militias which are all opposed to the presence of the American coalition forces. The two dominant political parties, Kurdish Democratic Party, and the patriotic union of Kurdistan were supported by Iran. They received support and sanctuary from Iran and this case turns against the leadership of Saddam Hussein. Does the U. S. Face a Future of Never-ending Sub-national & Trans-national Violence?, Thomas Barnett states that: The post-Cold War era has witnessed an amazing "downshifting" of the source of threats to global stability.
The United States in this scenario should develop a commitment in demonstrating a peace-waging force which should be found in its territorial borders which will involve the projection of the main instrument of power across the regions which is allegedly targeted in a global war against terrorism (Fortna et al, 2015 540). In doing this the US government will boast of great success in attracting partners of post-conflict and also the nation-building efforts which would have otherwise involved military interventions and leadership change. In this case, after demonstrating this, then some other nations will move in their direction and describing how a politically corrupt state will be rehabilitated successfully and involved in the global economy. For this to happen, it should start with the department of defense in establishing the required peace-waging which would replace the war.
If this is not taken seriously, the political regime will be largely affected when they will want to forge a new security alliance which is normally required when a country wants to manage shrink sources of transnational and domestic violence globally. In this case, we can say, Israel and US went into the war without any credible plan for terminating the conflict and also dealing with the effects of war they have chosen to fight. • The need to be able to use the air power which the US was used to employ when fighting in Iraq and afghans tan conflicts, however, the Israeli did a lot of miscalculations of strategic bombing in order to achieve military and political impacts which were characterized by form of strategic air power as some campaigns of interdiction as witnessed in 2001, during the Gulf war.
These military powers are old and military men should be conversant with them all the time (Haq et al 2018, 13863). On 2001, September 11, terrorism shocks the international community and it changed the perceptions of the global threat of terrorism and some of the equipment which will be used in preventing the occurrence of such. Though the equipment used in fighting terrorism has been there since the 1960s, the nation predictable threat by the terrorist networks such as al-Qaeda and some of its affiliations proved a risk of standby tools to be used in combating terrorism. " International Organization69, no. Gardner, H. American Global Strategy and the'war on Terrorism'. Routledge. Haq, Inamul, Muhammad Umer Azeem, Usman Raja, and Imran Sharif. "Effects of war, terrorism and armed conflict on young children: a systematic review.
From $10 to earn access
Only on Studyloop