What was driving the war on terror?

Résumé du document

"On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars. But for the past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941". The terrorist attacks of September 2001 represent a second Pearl Harbor, America is touched in its heart as the number of casualties is significant and as symbols of the US power were attacked (the Twin Towers in New-York and the Pentagon in Washington). These attacks have quickly been attributed to the Islamic terrorist organization called Al-Qaeda and to its chief Osama Bin Laden. The enemy of the US was then identified and America had the same reaction as sixty years before: fight back. However, the situation was totally different at the time. The enemy, Japan, was a State and was easy to attack. Al Qaeda is different as it is an organization and is thus difficult to identify geographically. This war against terrorists was new. Not only was it directed against Al Qaeda but it also concerned terrorism in general. In that declaration, G.W. Bush named it when he heralded: "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there." The concept spread was: "War on terror" (WoT). He developed it in the same speech: "It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated". Bush himself defined the concept of War on Terror and launched a new era in the US Foreign Policy. But, what was driving this War on Terror? Was it revenge after this terrible attack? Was it a will to eradicate terrorism? Or, was this concept only a pretext to serve the imperialism of the US and spread democracy?

Extraits

[...] It was then a good occasion for the US to stop terrorism globally. The intervention of the US Special Operations Command in the Philippines to fight against the Abu Sayyaf Group and Jemaah Islamiyah could be seen as one sample. But the US operated by sending troops or support, in many other countries like Somalia or Lebanon. In a nutshell, the will to eradicate terrorism seems to be a clear and sincere response to the 9/11 attacks. The US was harmed and needed to counter attack and they did it with a goal to secure the free world against terrorism. [...]

[...] Bush named it when he heralded: war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there.”[2] The concept was spread: on terror” (WoT). He developed it in the same speech: will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”[3]. Bush himself defined the concept of War on Terror and launched a new era in the US Foreign Policy. But, what was driving this War on Terror? Was it revenge after this terrible attack? Was it a will to eradicate terrorism? [...]

[...] There were actually 5 objectives to the WoT for the Citizens according to the Bush administration: Implement the National Strategy for Homeland Security; Attain domain awareness; Enhance measures to ensure the integrity, reliability, and availability of critical physical and information-based infrastructures at home and abroad; Integrate measures to protect US citizens abroad; Ensure an integrated incident management capability.[4] The first goal of the WoT was to bring to justice those behind the attacks, e.g. Al Qaeda. G.W Bush was very firm about reaching this objective. Talking about Bin Laden, he heralded that will do everything we can to stop him here at home, and we're doing everything we can to hunt him down and bring him to justice.”[5]. The Bush Administration thought at first that it was crucial to catch Bin Laden as an example of their success. [...]

[...] This brings the WoT to a new level. Indeed, the US wants to eradicate terrorism but they realized that some States are helping terrorist organizations. The WoT is then brought to a new level as States are involved but that does not mean the War becomes comparable to WWII. The US is putting pressure on States so that they stop supporting terrorism. The War is against terrorism still but could involve States in case of non cooperation. Those States supporting terrorism are known as “Rogue states”. [...]

[...] National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, Washington, DC: The White House, February 2003. For a general reference : Rudolph J. Rummel, Power Kills: Democracy as a Method of Nonviolence, Transaction Publishers Condoleeza Rice, Transforming the Middle East, The Washington Post, August Michael Albert and Stephen Shalom questions and answers, http://www.zmag.org/45qairaq.htm. [...]