Monday, November 24, 2008
War on Terror or War on Terrorism?
The intentions and actions taken immediately following the September 11, 2001 attacks were consistent with the goal of fighting terrorism, however since then the action taken has been misguided and misdirected. According to President Bush, the United States is now fighting a “War on Terror.” A distinction between “War on Terror” and “War on Terrorism” must be understood. This war on terror does not directly, and frankly, cannot serve as a solution to the conflict that led to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001. A “War on Terror” could be considered a fight against all acts of terror not necessarily from any terrorist or organized group, but what could essentially be one-person simply bringing harm to another group of people. In this sense it is not the United States’ responsibility to police the rest of the world and ensure the safety of every human being. However, a war against terrorism does offer an answer to the terrorist attacks that America regrettably experienced almost seven years ago. A war on terrorism would seek to eliminate terrorist organizations that have a global reach and whose existence and ideals pose an immediate threat not only to the United States, but also to other civilizations and people who encompass a Western way of thought. Whether it is a "War on Terror" or a "War on Terrorism," the United States must now make a decision about whether an American military presence in the Middle East is beneficial.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
i admit i found some real irony between your statement that "it is not the United States’ responsibility to police the rest of the world and ensure the safety of every human being" and the title of your blog (the reference to "Uncle Sam"). i think that's part of the problem; where do we draw the line between policing the world and saving people's lives? i doubt (though it's possible) that you would say our involvement in WWII was not our responsibility. is the line in the numbers of the people who are killed? How do we know when we should fight for another group's freedom and when we shouldn't? i know that went off on a tangent, sorry.
Your point also confuses me a little. A war on terror would respond to all terror-inspiring actions, but a war on terrorism would respond to all terror-inspiring AND world-reaching groups?
Annnnnd you made an interesting point about Western thinking, especially after the terrorist attacks on Mumbai. Do those people, since they aren't really "Western", NOT deserve our help?
i'm pretty sure you didn't intend for this to come across this way, and i apologize if i'm being too harsh!
I agree with Tess that your distinction between the war no terror and the war or terrorism is a little confusing. You even go on to say that a war on terror should only be waged when it directly affects the US, but then you directly contradict yourself by saying that we should wage a war on terrorism when it affects things in a global scope. I can see how you were able to draw these distinctions and the post was very interesting to read, but I tend to disagree with most of what you said, especially concerncing the recent attacks in Mumbai. As Tess said, do they not deserve our help because they aren't a "Western" society?
I think a common misconception that people have in today's society is that terrorist means: of Middle Eastern descent. It is impossible to declare a war on terror, because this is to broad of an idea and an impossible task to accomplish. Terror exists in all shapes and sizes and all over the country, not just in the Middle East.
The war against terror or against terrorism is just a title given to justify the actions of the American military and the decision to declare war of the American government. Regardless of who you attack and why you do it, you must label the opposition as a terrorist enemy. America will never shy away from this stance on the war.
Sam, I happen to agree with you; the US should distinguish between a "War on Terror" or a "War on Terrorism."
I think politicians use these terms to make their goals sound noble. For example, who wouldn't want to fight against "Terror?" Now rephrase the question. Who doesn't want the US to be in Iraq? A majority of americans. I think that is what Sam is talking about. It's important to be more specific when naming a war. Lastly, the "War on Terror" indicates that we are fighting against Terrorists (arguably the true reason to be fighting in the Middle East). However, the War on Terror is primarily about Iraq and Afghanistan. Sam's argument is valid in my eyes.
Hey Sammy, the only point I want to make is that I believe that the label the War on Terror is simply just a name. The United States Government is most likely not looking to eliminate every single terrorist organization; it simply cannot do so. Bush and his admministration chose the concept, War on Terror, because it was most likely the best rallying phrase they could come up with. The fact is, actions speak louder than words. And whether you call it th war on Terror, the War on Terrorism, the need for an American military presence in the Middle East exists within its own right. I believe the need for American Military action in the Middle East is even more necessary.
While I think I understand what you are trying to say, I did find your argument to be confusing as well. I think Shanil hit it right on with his point. A War on Terror is too broad. A War on Terrorism may be too broad as well. Is it just me, or does anyone not see that much difference between A war on Terror and a war on Terrorism? I guess terror is a feeling and terrorism is an act. But I think the "title" of the war should be specific so that it truly justifies American action. But I didn't understand how one "War on Terror" the U.S. shouldn't step in and be a force and on one "War on Terrorism" the U.S. should step in and be a force. Maybe I just misunderstood.
I completely agree on what Scott said, the titles of "War on Terror" and "The War on Terrorism" are two broad. I think you said some good points of that the U.S does not need to be in every country, but in most countries there are acts of terrorism, so to say that we are fighting a "War on Terrorism" and only focus on the Middle East is going against our own ideas of who we are fighting.
I think, Sam, you're making an overly technical argument about the war on "terror" and the war on "terrorism". Is inspiring terror not a fundamental part of "terror"ism? I would argue that it is, and there is no real distinction between terror and terrorism. But even if you're right that there is this distinction, I'm not sure how that leads to saying the US is trying to police the world. I agree, the US shouldn't police the world. We shouldn't send troops into Burma or Darfur for instance. But Iraq is different than either of those. According to the USFG, Iraq was a threat and is a terrorist organization with partial-global (or global) reach. Take India for example, Al Queda attacked them not long ago. Iraq isn't being the world police, it's protecting self interest (and if it's not, at least there's some argument about whether or not it is, there seems to be little discussion that the US could be directly harmed by the conflict in Burma or Darfur, hence the difference between world police, and a government with global reach)
Someone just took Cotton's class...
Well the U.S is known for giving unclear names or just giving multiple names for war. Such as the "gulf war"/"operation desert storm"/"Persian Gulf War"
The U.S. needs to make it clear and remove any confusion amongst our society so that we can support our country
Here's an excerpt from one of my recent papers -
War on Religiously Motivated Terrorism.” This name provides a “who” – religiously motivated non-state actors (implying Islamists) who direct their violence at civilians to instill fear, create chaos, and to gain power. Since the majority of Islamists and terrorist organizations are located in the Middle East, the name also provides us with a concrete understanding of where and the locations of the boundaries. However, we need to strongly reinforce that this war is by no means a religious war.
- That is my view
I agree with all of the comments everyone left, however it is a pretty tough concept to grasp at first glance. Sam and I both took Understanding 911, which may be evident through our similar views. While the results of terror vs. terrorism may be overlapping, the main distinction is who goes forth with the act. In class last trimester, Mr. Cotton identified an act of terrorism as one done by someone in collaboration with an organization, not a government. Terror, on the other hand, is what we used to describe Saddam Hussein because was an individual who was not linked to an organization such as al-Qaeda. Being in the same class as you were, I agree with your points, but see where many people disagreed.
I disagree with your statement that a War on Terrorism is the correct response to the September 11 Attacks. By invading Afghanistan, the United States was seeking to eliminate two entities, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. A War on Terrorism implies that the United States is eliminating all terrorism, regardless of who is performing it. A War in Afghanistan, on the other hand, suggests that the United States has an enemy within Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, whom they wish to eliminate.
I'd like to try and expand a little on Nick's comment. Perhaps the best response to a terrorist threat doesn't always have to include a complete militaristic response. The U.S tried to attack terrorist organizations without realizing that we weren't tackling the root of the issues or that eliminating these terrorists by force would be near impossible because they identify themselves with certain beliefs.
Post a Comment