All of Orientalism stands forth and away from the Orient: that Orientalism makes sense at all depends more on the West than on the Orient, and this sense is directly indebted to various Western techniques of representation that make the Orient visible, clear, and “there” in a discourse. And these representations rely upon institutions, traditions, conventions, agreed-upon codes of understanding for their effects, not upon a distant and amorphous Orient.
—Edward W. Said, Orientalism

The act of terrorism is defined by the United State Code as “any activity that involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life… [or] appears to be intended… to influence the policy of a government”. As we can already see, the line between a terrorist and a criminal seems to be, at least in the sense of their definitions, pretty fade; however, in the grand scheme of things, these two titles spur very different reactions. On one hand, criminals are people who are everyday robbers: people who are harmful, but could be left in prison for a said amount of time before release. On the other hand, terrorists are those who are unforgivable, those who need to be put into special prisons, those who must be rooted out of the society, and those who are dangerous enough to go to war with. Of course, after 911 terrorism was at the height of everyone’s worries, people needed some way to relieve their anxiety; they needed a scapegoat to blame. The rest of that story is history. America found its scapegoat and we invaded the Middle East. My argument is not whether or not the intervention in the Middle East is justified; rather, my argument is whether or not the discourse of “the war on terror” is justified (ie the way that people are represented by this discourse, who it represents, and how we are responding to this representation). There are obvious implications when people call someone or some country a terrorist: people become scared, military intervenes, and eventually war is declared. Edward Said, a professor in Columbia University, believes that this discourse of “the war on terror” does not stem from terrorists but rather from an old lapse in our culture: orientalism (better known as xenophobia). Said believe that the word “terrorist” is specifically constructed to other-ize the other; to distinguish an enemy of the empire. Said wrote in 2005 that the use of this word in fact got us into interventions, or rather war, in the Middle East and it also conjured, or widened, a gap between a “rational” west and an “irrational” orient (Greek for East). Said emphasizes the point that modern construction of the word “terrorism” does not revolve around rooting out a certain group, but rather the word serves as justification to root out a whole population. Now, I am not as radical in thought as Said. No I am not an anti-American (I know some of you will think I am). Yes, I actually do think that in some ways it is a good idea to intervene in the Middle East; I think it is a good idea to take out bad dictators and prevent other corrupt officials from taking over a country. However, I also believe that saying “war on terror” is not an appropriate reason to start intervention, especially when people designated a specific population (i.e the Arabs) and a specific location (i.e the Middle East) to represent “terrorism”, which is a title that should be suitable to any international criminal.



"[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping."
—United States Code Congressional and Administrative News

Journal Entry 4/12/10 - War on Terror

After 9/11/01, political views on the war on terrorism have changed greatly. Our nation called for many security evaluations. This was a real eye-opener for many Americans because it is the first time a terrorist group had actually significantly affected thousands of Americans. The memory of this event will live on forever and this is what launched the War on Terror during President Bush's administration. I believe at the time President Bush handled things the way most Americans would have wanted. He called for many great changes in our country's national security. Immediately, troops were sent into Afghanistan and Iraq to try to fight off the dangerous terrorist groups. Also, airport security increased by a huge magnitude and more and more laws were put into effect by the TSA. Ideas about monitoring phone calls of suspicious actitivies were even being considered, and today certain laws exist about when the government can tap phone calls. This was what Amercians wanted - measures taken to prevent future attacks. The US was in search for the corrupt leader of Iraq and the head of the suspected terrorist group that planned the 9/11 attacks, Saddam and Osama. Many Americans agreed that this was the best action to take, however troops still reside all over the Middle East that were stationed there during this event. I believe that the troops have been there for way too long and should withdraw. Not only is it a huge waste of American money, but ruthless fighting with no objectives takes place everyday. I do agree that these terrorist groups should be put out of control and that Middle Eastern countries need to support and create a healthy government, but the large number of American troops and the fighting does not need to occur and it is very detrimental to our economy. With all the recent spending and debt that the Federal government has been facilitating, we need all the monetary resources we can get, and keeping the multitude of troops in Iraq is not necessary. After reading The Forever War by Dexter Filkins, I see the horrors that the troops have to go through and the poor civilian inhabitants of the country. I think the war and fighting needs to stop and we should be using a lot less troops to achieve this. I think that the UN needs to take a larger role in these terrorist activities. What puzzles me more than anything however, is the lack of motives that these terrorist groups have. Why? I don't understand why one or a mixure of these groups can just come together to form a cooperative, peaceful government. They thrive off this inessential need for violence and power which I see little point to. The Iraqi police needs to be building prisons along with schools to contain all the dangerous leaders and members of these terrorist groups. Overall, I think the US should at least try to remove soldiers little by little and observe the effects. If things go well, then we can use the resulting money we save on economic programs.

War on Terror

I know why the war on terror was started, but I don’t know why it has gone on as long as it has. The Bush administration acted quickly and probably reacted as most humans would to a huge attack on civilians. I don’t really think they thought through the decision to start the war very well though. I do believe that some form of retaliation was necessary. They couldn’t let the al-Qaeda get away with killing thousands of our innocent citizens. They had to show the rest of the world that we are still dominant and not to be messed with. I think that not choosing war would have made an even greater impact on the world though. I understand why they chose war and I’m not necessarily condemning them for it, but I think that there are better ways to handle things. You can still be assertive and send the message that your country is not to be messed with without declaring war. I think that, had the war option not been chosen, the United States would have shown the rest of the world that we are powerful, strong, and respectful enough to think things through a little more carefully and come up with a better option. This wouldn’t have been something normal for the United States to do, and that may have shocked the rest of the world into being more respectful and stopping the violence for long enough that a resolution could have been made. The fact that the war option was chosen is sending a mixed message. The United States is sending a message that says, “We are fighting war on terror by killing thousands of innocent people in a naïve attempt at finding most al-Qaeda members.” It’s very hypocritical and backwards. They are trying to fight fire with fire, and all it has done is create a bigger fire. When we went to the Middle East in search of the terrorists, we killed lots of innocent people. This angered many other groups of people there, and then they got involved. This has created a huge, nasty war where our soldiers are fighting multiple groups of people. In these multiple groups of people, there are people who switch sides daily. This changes the way the war has to be fought so that all of our soldiers don’t get killed, and it’s impossible to keep track of the numbers on each side. This all goes back to the theory of thinking things through a little more carefully. If the Bush administration had done enough research to know about the multitude of political and religious groups in the Middle East, as well as these groups’ behaviors and beliefs, there wouldn’t be as big of a mess right now. They may not have chosen war, and even if they still had chosen war there wouldn’t be this huge mess. We are fighting terrorism with terrorism. I don’t agree with it at all and it is not making the United States look good to the rest of the world. I know a lot of people justify the fact that we don’t look good by saying that people are scared of us. That may be true, but is that really what we want? Also, I don’t believe that every country is scared of us. I think some countries think that we are somewhat cowardly. In this whole terrorism situation, I think that braver thing to do would have been not choosing war.

War on Terror

The war on terror that the United States is currently fighting is a war that is different from any other war we have fought in. in this war we are not fighting a specific country, rather we are fighting what I would call a concept. That concept is terrorism. Terrorism is defined as the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. We are fighting in such countries as Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, but in reality, we aren’t fighting those countries. We are fighting to prevent acts of terrorism and protect innocence people from malicious attacks. This war on terror was fairly tamed before one day nine years ago changed everything. The September 11 attacks in New York and Washington, DC lit a fire and caused a series of actions that would lead to the start of the war we are still in. Most people have very strong opinions toward the war; they are either extremely against it or they are content with it. Many people put a bulk of the blame for this war on George W. Bush. He has been scrutinized and ridiculed for sending troops overseas and taking the actions his did after the attacks. I disagree with people blaming him because any president would have done the same exact thing. The president’s job is to protect the United States and Bush was doing just that. The United States had not been attacked on that magnitude before, and being the powerful country that we are, we couldn’t just sit back and take it.

The reality is that the war on terror will probably never end or be won by one side or the other. Obama has said that he plans on withdrawing troops, but this could end up making things worse before it makes everything better. Al-Qaeda will never stop doing what it does. It will never stop attacking and killing innocent people. The people associated with al-Qaeda are sick and demented people that enjoy what they do, and because of this, they will not stop or be stopped. In my opinion we are fighting a war we cannot win. I don’t mean to sound negative or anything like that but I truly feel that terrorism will never end. The United States has done a fairly good job with preventing any future attacks on our home soil but there are threats being made daily that could endanger this. I agree that we should withdraw troops because these troops could be used for more important purposes. The military has lost too many men and women in this war to road side bombs and other surprise attacks. Because the United States is seen as one of the most powerful countries in the world, it feels that it must do anything and everything to uphold that image. The war on terror shows this because the country’s image was tarnished after September 11th and it took the actions necessary to show that we would not take such violence. We have been at the war long enough. It is time to admit that we cannot fix everything and get our troops out of there.

I'm So Glad I Typed This War On Terror Thing Last Week...

I may not be highly informed on the War on Terror, but I do know the basics that pretty much help me decide which side I am for. First of all, I don’t think I know anyone who is FOR war. Personally, I think there are two types of people: the people who are against war all the way through and the people who are against war but support it when it’s necessary. I am the second option. Right now, we are waging a war on the persistent issue of terrorism. Terrorism, in my opinion, is like hatred; you can’t really eliminate it. From my knowledge, the war was provoked by the September 11th attacks. If someone attacks us on our soil, you better KNOW that we’re retaliating. We cannot just sit around and let the event slip past as just a mere incident. For this reason, I believe that the war was validated. It was officially started on October 7th (according to Wikipedia), which I thought was eerie because that’s my birthday, and it still continues today. When war was first declared, former president Bush claimed that there were weapons of mass destruction. These, as far as we’re informed, have never been found. Regardless, terrorism needs to go. Seriously, it’s not making anyone’s life better by killing innocent people because your god told you to do so. I don’t want to insult these people’s religion or anything, but killing is wrong. What if I came to your house randomly and just killed your child? Would you understand? Would you be just fine and dandy with the murder of your kid? I would hope not! It is common sense to not harm innocent people. Why do the terrorist feel the need to terrorize? Is it because they hate the Americans? That’s another thing I have a huge issue with. Why do people hate us? We help people when they need it and yet they still feel the need to criticize. And even if you do hate Americans, you don’t take their lives. Here in the U.S., almost everyone is understanding (or in the least respectful) of other people’s cultures. But if other countries say they hate us, oh it’s just fantastic. Because we DESERVE it, right? You have to be kidding me. If you think that, I just… ugh, I would be infuriated. (Sorry for the rant…back onto the topic). So, war on terrorism is a good thing I think. No, it’s not good that innocent people are getting killed, but there is use for it. Breaking up terrorist stuff is a good cause. Now, the criteria for this war that was thought up by Bush are actually completely rational. One goal of his was to “work with willing and able states”. I wanted to point this out because everyone whines and complains about how we’re invading and interfering with people that don’t want our help. If they don’t want it, we either try to persuade them or stop trying (I think…). As for Obama pulling out the troops, or whatever he claimed he would do, that is not a smart idea. Pulling out of the war now will only leave these places in a worse state than they are right now. By doing this the war would have been pointless. If he’s concerned about money, then maybe he should stop funding other things that America isn’t a fan of. (I will leave out examples. I don’t want people to get too fired up.)

War on Terror...

Our topic to discuss this week has to be about the war on terror. I myself am not very well versed on the topic so I decided to do a little bit of research in order to form a more valid opinion on the subject.
I understand that it began with the nine eleven attacks. I understand that America wanted revenge. I understand that the United States wants to always have the upper hand and be respected. I understand that in order to maintain our dominance, retaliation was required or else we would have been viewed as cowards. I understand that President George W. Bush needed to make an executive decision. What I do not understand, however, is why the decision had to be war.
If the Bush administration decided to search and search for weapons of mass destruction, what made them think war was the only option? President Obama now states that we are simply at war with the al-Qaeda forced in Afghanistan. However, it is impossible to be at war with only a minute group, and also very unidentifiable enemy, in the middle of a large, under developed country. Thousands of people die everyday from the American troops stay in the Middle East. Yes, there may have been deaths before from terrorists, but even then, the numbers were lower. Civilian deaths are what make up the large count of people lost in battles. I find it ironic that the United States government decided to go to war to create peace: not only this war but throughout history, as well.
People may say that I am uninformed about the war or that I am ignorant; I would have to agree with those people. I do not desire to watch the news every night like my dad does. Sometimes I will sit with him and watch it just to be nice. However, I do not particularly enjoy watching fellow Americans being blown to pieces. I think war is an outdated form of resolution between parties and as one of the dominant countries of the world, we should be an example for those less fortunate and stand against this institution. War was useful back in the older days when the English language, and other languages for that matter, was less widely used and it was more difficult for members of different nations to communicate their plans. I believe that by participating in war, we are simply acting as Neanderthals.
How else may we deal with terrorism? There are ways. In this situation, I believe the Bush administration did what they believed was necessary because there had never been a civilian attack on American soil. People were scared for their lives and when people get scared their immediate instinct is to strike back. Even though it was a major set back to have been attacked in New York City, the Unites States government should not have been so rash in making the decision to put even more peoples’ lives in danger by going to war with al-Qaeda.

Out of the Fire, Into the Frying Pan

The War on Terror is a misnomer. It should be renamed as the War on Ourselves and Everyone besides the Terrorists. Although terrorism is a serious issue, America has made devastating strategic blunders. What it should do now is get out of Iraq and into Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is riddled with instability and terrorism, and our troops are needed to take care of the situation. There are around 150,000 troops in Afghanistan right now, and the US troops make up about 2/3 of that number. Still, a surge is needed. The recent increase has allowed US troops to bring peace to many areas that were in control of radicals.

There are some of you that remain unconvinced that more troops in Afghanistan would alleviate the problem. However, there have been great improvements in military tactics. There has been a closer look on the bigger picture in Afghanistan. An example of this is the new focus on the drug trade. The US has known about the drug issue for a long time, yet it has not done anything about it. The public officials declared that they would tackle the drug problem after there was more stability and less terror in the country. Yet, the poppy fields have been empowering the radical groups and creating a steady stream of cash for them. The US has realized its mistake and is instructing some of the military and police force to handle the poppy problem. This does more than weaken the radical groups financially. It allows the forces to have an opportunity to bridge between differences with the Afghan government. Fighting against the drug trade also has its benefits for the world, since 92% of the world’s opium is produced in Afghanistan.

While having troops in Afghanistan is important, withdrawing troops from Iraq has its benefits. The US military is dangerously overstretched. Too much of the military is overseas and in different parts of the world. Having a small force in some of these areas jeopardizes the success of the missions. Afghanistan needs more forces, but there does not seem to be enough soldiers to pull from the US. Withdrawing troops from Iraq would free them up, allowing a surge in Afghanistan.

Also, there is not just a soldier overstretch, but a resource overstretch as well. Right now in Afghanistan, many of our troops are going hungry. The people that choose to risk their lives fighting for the security of our nation deserve at least their basic needs. Placing troops geographically closer would immensely improve the resource shortage by facilitating the transportation issue.

Some might argue that the troops in Iraq are still important. The troops stationed there are indeed important, but they are not necessary. The soldiers in Iraq are mostly there to prevent conflict between the different ethnic groups in Iraq. Although there is some conflict, the situation has improved from previous years, and Saddam Hussein has been executed. If there are still problems after the troops leave from Iraq, the military can potentially return full force to Iraq after there is relative security in Afghanistan and an agreement has been made between the US and Iraq.

One last thing to talk about in the role of the US in combating terror is the image it creates. A common argument against troops in Afghanistan is that it would spur anti-Americanism. However, this argument applies to Iraq and not to Afghanistan.

In Iraq, US troops depict our nation as an arrogant one. Iraqis claim that the US does not belong there. When Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Muslim, was in power, the Shiites demanded the US to leave the country and to not deal with the internal affairs of another nation. Now that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite Muslim, is in power, the Sunnis demand that we leave. Despite the flip-flopping of the ethnic groups, it is true that we are interfering in the internal affairs of another country, and even if we believe that it is justified, many others do not. Our presence in Iraq makes us look bad in the eyes of the international community, especially after the accusations of nuclear weapons in Iraq were proven false. Lastly, there is the US-Iraq SOFA (Status of Force Agreement). This agreement states that US forces will leave Iraq by December 31, 2011. Our troops are mandated to leave the country in about a year and a half. If the US does not leave, the entire global community would have a less than favorable opinion about us.

However, US troops need to be in Afghanistan. Not only are they there to increase security, but they are also there to enhance our image. It is true that US troops in the Middle East has not made America the most popular country. Yet, more nations sympathize with our position in Afghanistan than in Iraq. Although some issues in the Middle East are deemed as not our problem, the US has issues in Afghanistan that it has somewhat of a right to tackle. Afghanistan harbors terrorist groups that have made devastating attacks against the Western world. In fact, it was the attacks on 9/11 that set the flood of troops into Afghanistan, and although the Taliban regime was toppled, there is still dangerous activity in the region. Also, it would actually make the US look weaker in the eyes of some countries. After all, we still have not found Osama bin Laden, and withdrawing troops after no success in a hunt only makes us look like the losers.

There is hard power and soft power. Hard power is the military might that a country has and the intimidation factor. Soft power is the credibility and trust of a country. The ideal is a form of power known as smart power: a strong combination of soft power and hard power. Smart power for the US right now can be achieved by relocating the troops in Iraq to Afghanistan.

Again, the troops in Iraq should be moved to Afghanistan because it would help fight against terror, solve the overstretch problem, and place a desirable balance of power in our nation’s hands. We need to get out of the fire and into the frying pan. However, the fire is not just Iraq, and the frying pan is not just Afghanistan. The fire is the current state of global instability, and the frying pan is a world, although imperfect, that has less terror, less violence, and less conflicts.

Note to Glenn: This blog entry is over 1000 words long. You’re welcome.