looking for

US policy of War on Terror in the Effect of 9/11

The terrorist attacks in New York and Washington on 11 September 2001 have affected US global policy. The terrorist attacks have presented an “opportunity” for Washington to attempt to constrain the emerging complexity of the emerging international system as a whole by shifting international focus to the relatively narrow, but no less significant, issue-area of 'anti-terrorism'. Since then, the US has made consistent and persuasive, indeed unremitting, attempts to reduce many other items on the international political and economic agenda to an anti-terrorist essence. They took the policy of preemption. They argue that, “In the cold war essentially following the Cuban Missile crisis we faced a general status quo, risk adverse adversary. Deterrence was the effective defense. But deterrence based only upon the threat of retaliation is less likely to work against the leaders of rogue states more willing to take risks gambling with the lives of their people, and the wealth of their nation.” They also argue “Rogue States and terrorists do not seek to attack using conventional means. They know such attack will fail. Instead they rely on act of terror and, potentially the use of weapon of mass destruction- weapon that can be essentially concealed, delivered covertly and used without warning” Thus the 9/11 attacks have created a new wave of anti-Islam movement in the USA and even other Western countries. More importantly these events led the US officials to believe that American policy in the Muslim world should include a commitment to "deeper, more sustained, and more engagement on the full range of issues. In fact, the events confirmed the importance of the Islamic World to USA. Accordingly, the US policymakers came to believe that the deeper their presence, the more likely they were to achieve their objectives. This new approach has required new US steps in engagement, significantly reorientating its foreign policy, and attempting to enhance involvement with the Muslim world either positively or negatively.At the beginning President Bush tried to identify a crusade however, it was quickly reacted by the Muslim world and some non-Muslim nations as well. But as it has been stated the 'war on terror' and it is not limited to Afghanistan and Bin Laden's group, it would be continued against Muslim and non-Islamic countries that the America considered to be supporter of terrorism. Based on this statement Bush characterized Iraq, Iran and North Korea ‘axis of evil’. In the mentioned countries and other Muslim countries and more importantly within the United States and its allies the Bush’s words have met with angry responses. Former US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, for example, called Mr. Bush's comments "a big mistake". Furthermore, NATO's Secretary-General, Lord Robertson, warned that the US has to provide evidence to justify any action against Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Moreover, possible links between the Al-Qaeda terrorist network in Afghanistan and some radical groups in some parts of the Islamic World such the Central Asian region made these parts a prime security zone for USA. In this regards, President Bush proclaimed in his address to Congress on 20 September 2001: ‘The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as Al-Qaeda. [This] group and its leader, a person named Osama bin Laden, are linked to many other organizations in different countries – including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.Despite such view after Afghanistan US attacked Iraq 1n 2003 under the name of the 'war on terror' and fight against WMD. This led to the invasion of Iraq for more than three years.To sum up, the US-led anti-terrorism campaign since September 2001 and subsequent war in Afghanistan and Iraq have greatly affected Washington’s policy in the Islamic world, and have led the United States to establish more footholds in some of the Muslim countries which includes the recently changing strategy in Middle East. A crucial example of how the strategy of USA is transformed with the change in time is the recent crisis in Middle East. At the time of withdrawal of Ben Ali or Husny Mubarak the so called ‘our people’ of USA, the West (USA) remain unspoken. Though being non democrat, Shah of Iran, Suharto of Indonesia, autocrats of Pakistan were backed by USA. Monarchs in Jordan, Morocco, and Bahrain are ruling smoothly still now. Their publics are not provoked to withdraw the tyrants. It is thought that the public up rise in Tunisia and Egypt was spontaneous and more or less non violent. But high suspicion is present about the insurgency in Libya. It’s organized attitude, supply of sophisticated weapon within a short span of time deposit the revolution into high suspicion that it might be incited by US strategy.The external invasion in Libya at the name of ‘the world community’ is really underpinning the approach of USA towards Libya, as Gaddafi has never been the ally of USA. Therefore, it might be a part of the grand strategy to confiscate Mummer Gaddafi from the throne of Libya using the flow of public rage to establish and reinforce neo imperialism in this strategic region to maintain worldwide domination.