Sunday, April 11, 2010

The war on terror seems to be a very unpredictable war. I’m not even sure it can be called a true war. In this, we are not fighting a tangible force. There seems to be no specific target. In this war, the target is continually changing, which ever nation or collaboration that gives the most problems or is calculated to be the most dangerous becomes the new mark for the brunt of the United States military.
With the tragedy of September 11th, President George Bush launched the beginning of the war on terror. He gained support from NATO in his efforts to end terrorism. The targets were clear, whoever participated in the practice of using fear and destruction to accomplish their tasks. More specifically, al-Qaeda and the Taliban are the most common. This was the first use of the term “War on Terror” in American history. However, it is not original in its aims. President Clinton used war-like actions to fight the terrorist who bombed U.S. Embassies. George Bush stated that although the targets were these two extremist groups, the war on terror would not end with them. It would end solely when every terrorist organization had been eradicated from global reach. This noble quest seems to be a bit far-fetched. Would it be worth the masses killed or injured in the process of exterminating the individuals performing the terrorist acts? One could only hope that the number of casualties due to the actual war would be fewer that those casualties resulting from the terrorist actions.
Today, President Obama has changed the campaign name but clearly is resuming the work Bush started. He can change the name all he wants but the goals remain the same. However the way Obama is attempting to relieve the world of this menace is far different. He is attempting to close Guantanamo Bay detention facilities and increase troops in Afghanistan. This system seems very confusing. I believe our hold on the bay should be kept. It has served us very well in the past and there seems to be no reason to discontinue its use.
This war on terror is necessary in the world today. It may be expensive and there may be many critics, but the fact remains, it is slowly destroying the groups that cause so much conflict and chaos within the world. Some try to argue that other governments are being exploited by the United States. This statement is completely unfair. As a nation, we are only attempting to help other nations establish more secure governments within themselves. It clearly is only to help those who want or need the aid. There is nothing being forced on these countries, contrary to beliefs some may have. If the United States did not get involved in this war on terror, terrorist groups would go unchecked and unstoppable. The world would truly suffer. Our nation was the only one strong enough to take on a force as large as all terrorist groups. It was through our lead that other nations gave their own support to fight the force. Without this influence, who knows what would have happened.


  1. I agree with you. Declaring a war on terror is completely far-fetched. It's like a war against poverty or hunger; it's never going to be solved. Obama claimed to pull out of the war, and whether someone agrees with that idea or not, it doesn't matter. He decided, instead, to send more troops into Afghanistan (how that's suppose to be ending it is beyond me) and also the closing of Guantanamo is also ludicrous. Releasing terrorists while fighting a war against terrorism seems like we're fighting for both sides.
    This shouldn't be the case, obviously.

    As for the US 'interfering'... we were provoked and are allotted to respond. So, yes, I agree that we should be trying to break up these terrorist organizations. However, eliminating terrorism is an unrealistic goal, like obtaining world peace, so I'm not sure if it's necessary that the US should help out every other country in crisis.
    I think we're one of the few countries help out other countries after they attack us.
    And still, we are criticized.

  2. Just a few clear ups. I do agree that the war on terror is very unpopular and how the war is very ambiguous in terms of having an actual target. Historically, it was the Reagan Administration that initially "coined" the term "War on Terror. The 9/11 attacks just brought more attention and more momentum to this "war". Though I do agree that this war is probably not very effective or is it even a good option; however, I do give it credit for being a response to terrorism, specifically 9/11, even if that response might not be too successful. Now, the assertion of security trip might be reasonable and US probably needs to be there to secure others from perpetuating harm. However, this discourse on security always trip across the argument that these threats are constructs that are needed to justify intervention.