American Foreign Policy: What was driving the war on terror?

Résumé du document

The violence and the impact of the 9/11 attacks led the Bush government to act strongly in order to reassure the American people. Acting strongly at the time meant that the US would have to fight "the war on terror". This expression, although vague, highlighted a struggle against terrorism - which is warfare not an enemy – and therefore designs new conflicts to which classic warfare seem undermined.

To further the notion of terrorism, we can focus on Wardlaw's definition : "political terrorism is the use, or threat of use, of violence by an individual or group, whether acting for or in opposition to established authority, when such action is designed to create extreme anxiety and/or fear-inducing effects in a target group larger than the immediate victims with the purpose of coercing that group into acceding to the political demands of the perpetrators" (Cox & Stokes, 2008).

Therefore a war against terrorism, understood as substate terrorism (organizations as al-Qaeda for example), is a drastically change from a classic war: there is no state-to-state conflict, as terrorism is a spread-out movement that is not necessary linked to a territory, thus there are several problems in terms of international law as a war on terror involves a participation from the international community and the implement of a certain interference with the countries' sovereignty.

Moreover, classic actions that can weaken an enemy without sending troops (economic embargo for example) are undermined by the informal nature of terrorism (in al-Qaeda's case for example, its revenues were developed throughout the opium black production). Therefore, the war on terror seems to be almost in-winnable in our Westphalian structures, or at least very difficult to apprehend, and represents a serious cost without exactly protecting a country's interest.

Extraits

[...] Since power is increasingly dependent on oil supplies, the US hegemony would be total. This vision echoes the instrumentalist blood for oil theories (Stokes, 2007)[9]. However, as Doug Stokes argues in his article, there is a transnational interest behind the Iraq war : along with US national interests (US hegemony, securing crucial oil supplies), the creation of an open international market would benefit to global powers under Washington's control. In this respect, the US began a policy of mass privatization through the Coalition Provisional Authority which implied the unlimited and unrestricted arrival of foreign capital in the Iraq market (Stokes, 2009)[10]. [...]

[...] Such a bias indicates the US urge to declare war on Iraq and contradicts its liberal rhetoric. Further more, if there are already contradictions within the liberal discourse held by the neocons, it is even more noticeable in the application of the war on terror. Indeed, as Paul Rogers puts it (Cox & Stokes, 2008)[4], the detention of large numbers of suspected terrorist in Guantanamo Bay military base in Cuba was an immediate controversy In 1999, before the shock of 9/11 and the retaliation process, Bush signed an executive order that stipulated the US military could indefinitely detain any non-citizen who was believed to be involved in international terrorism in the facility of Guantanamo. [...]

[...] American Foreign Policy: What was driving the war on terror? The violence and the impact of the 9/11 attacks led the Bush government to act strongly in order to reassure the American people. Acting strongly at the time meant that the US would have to fight the war on terror This expression, although vague, highlights a struggle against terrorism - which is warfare not an enemy and therefore designs new conflicts to which classic warfares seem undermined. To further the notion of terrorism, we can focus on Wardlaw's definition : political terrorism is the use, or threat of use, of violence by an individual or group, whether acting for or in opposition to established authority, when such action is designed to create extreme anxiety and/or fear-inducing effects in a target group larger than the immediate victims with the purpose of coercing that group into acceding to the political demands of the perpetrators (Cox & Stokes, 2008)[1]. [...]

[...] Global capital, counter-insurgency and the dual logic of American energy security, the Review of International studies, 33: pp245-264 [9]Doug Stokes, Blood for oil? Global capital, counter-insurgency and the dual logic of American energy security, the Review of International studies, 33: pp245-264 [10]Doug Stokes, the war gamble: understanding US interests in Iraq, Globalization [11]Joseph Stiglitz & Linda Blimes, The three trillion dollar war : the true cost of the Iraq conflict, WW Norton & Co, february 2008. Bush says it is time for action CNN.com, November With us or against us? [...]

[...] In his 2002 State of the Union speech, Bush expanded his concept of war on terror to include other Islamic radical organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, pressuring other countries to control such movements ; and also included not only substate terrorism but rogue states that were defined as working against US security interests by supporting terrorist organizations and developing mass destruction weapons. The US would fight against the axis of evil (Iraq, Iran, North Korea) and implement a crusade for democracy The obvious religious and moral references tend to highlight the idealistic feature of such a foreign policy. The same year, in his West Point speech, Bush continues to extend his concept by adding a new characteristic inherent to the war on terror : the pre-emptive war. [...]