War on terror

By Sagnik Saha

Editor’s note:

War has long been utilized as a tool to procure glory, as a means to end or to be waged to propagate hatred. War on terror is a label given to military activity executed by USA post 9/11. It consists of a set of activities aimed as lessening the threat of terrorism on the planet. This paper examines whether such ‘war’ prevents or compels further violence, whether it averts an enemy from participating in a specific mission; or urges an adversary to undo something recently done. It also examines the background and origin of war on terror, and examines certain hypotheses regarding the same.


“Everyone’s a pacifist between wars. It’s like being a vegetarian between meals.”

– Colman McCarthy

War is the epitome of violence. It is the destruction of man. It is the decider of the destiny of countries. Some feel it is important, others find it appalling. Some procure everlasting glory and honor through it, while numerous more succumb to the ground to perish, never having completely comprehended the purpose of it. There are the individuals who utilize it as a means to an end while others wage it with a wanton hatred for their assumed adversaries.

“War on Terror” is a challenge in itself to characterize, because of its dubiousness and its unsparing use as a rhetoric device to legitimize any military activity executed by the U.S post-911. Assuming that it must be characterized in the way it appears to have been proposed, it could be as a set of activities pointed – or implied to be pointed – at taking out or lessening terrorism on the planet. The saying “terrorism” is for the most part characterized as “the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or its threat.”

To comprehend if the War on Terror is prevention or compellence or none, of these, there must be a stipulated meaning of deterrence and compellence. Deterrence is the danger of energy made by a character with the point of averting an enemy from participating in a specific mission; while compellence is the risk of force made by a character with the point of urging an adversary to undo something recently done or start a limited action.


September 11 changed the United States’ idea of terrorism. Preceding these assaults, Americans commonly saw terror events and terrorists through the view of foreign affairs, truly removed from “commonplace” concerns. Terrorist occasions involving Americans did happen, sometimes on American soil, however a feeling of American immunity never genuinely wavered. September 11 tested this assumption; and views on the history of terrorism, compelling some to reconsider past occasions so as to find signs of those tragedies that are yet to come.

A take on the advancement of the written works on terrorism starting in the early 1980’s as of recently uncovers some cognitive cacophony. In presenting this material, it is not to illustrate terrorism or characterize terrorism in this area. Indeed, it is the precise meaning of terrorism that is tested by the variety of activities gathered under the title of the American War on Terror. Preceding September 11, “terrorism” was comprehended as all the more extensively by individuals. In spite of the fact that a solitary definition has never been consistently connected, consequently the incorporation in this process of such associations as the IRA and PLO assumed that the “terror” is essentially connected with themes connected with the War on Terror. The history areas are especially legitimate to this conviction; however they likewise indicate a few zones that are dismissed by the present situation.

The historical segment is divided into two areas, before and after 2002. Sources are basically constrained to books, as they furnish a more far reaching medication of themes than would ordinarily be discovered in articles.

The Reports segment gives reports from government offices, non-administrative associations and research organizations. The reports present differing qualities of assessment and varying suggestions on how best to defy terrorism. Sources date from 1979 onwards, the year of the Iran Hostage emergency, an obviously identifiable focus in time in which Americans were defied by a terrorist enactment

The Clinton administration: The prequel

The bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the ambush on the USS Cole in 2000 pushed Osama Bin Laden into the focus of the U.S. after which Clinton showed will to use an extent of activities, joining military strikes, against this self-declared enemy of the United States. Various acquirements of the USA Patriot Act, surged into law in October 2001, had in like manner been propelled in right on time drafts of the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, passed going with the 1993 World Trade Center assaulting and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombarding. These fused the development of presidential and police powers; an expanding of the importance of “terrorist” to fuse immigrants with tangential affiliations with accumulations distinguished as terrorists by the president; indeterminate repression of noncitizens; changes in the order of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act shows in cases of outcast removal; and an enhanced limit to use wandering wiretaps. While some of these obtainments were finally stripped from the 1996 signal, this spot of Clinton-period establishment outfitted the first sign with respect to how the advancing centrality of counterterrorism in U.S. down home and external course of action may lead Congress to drop its protections, and the all inclusive community to persist diminishes in their rights and flexibilities.

The Bush Administration

For Bush, this “new peril” of “sudden terror” was presented by the association as existing outside any genuine or geopolitical setting, and fundamentally as an enduring accident between unpreventably limited qualities. As various solid accounts, it held viably identifiable model figures of outstanding and savage, an epic battle, and the surety of a triumphal end for the forces of moderation. Doubtlessly, in following years various supporters of this new war may differentiate it with the earlier fight against communism. Further, the story had a hyperbolic exciting vigor: these were fakes, whose suggestions both panicked and titillated. Besides if the exact nature or number of the enemy was dark, diverse parts were in all excessively basic supply: they were “ready in the arrangements of dread” and utilized their days plotting “malignance and devastation” against the United States.

Facing this hazard, Americans were given a part as superheroes, their organization empowered by the Justice Department to bounce over both national and general law and, the entire time, the country’s deference for human pride and the guideline of law. The story embedded itself significantly into U.s. government decision making, remarkably in the safety and insight bunches, where it credited able connected underpinning to major U.s. exercises. It was unquestioningly expended by the U.s. media, whose need for unfortunate, easy to-grasp stories was modestly served, and also by business ventures that underpin the U.s. hindrance neighborhood, whose dedication to the record had the inclination of being both lively and gainful.

Undoubtedly, diverse countries furthermore told their own particular specific types of the worldwide war on fear story, even while referencing longstanding conflicts with specific close-by exhibitions, if incorporating national identity, political station, or possessions. The planet’s nationals similarly devoured the story, regardless of the way that for various it implied a war against the planet’s Muslims started by the United States and headed off to upon Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Obama administration

The point when taking office, hopeful Obama demonstrated his recommendation to update the normal record. On the off chance that, as specified earlier, the worldwide war on dread worked all around the Bush years as a floating signifier that could be joined to any method, practice, or adversary, Obama made it clear he may attempt to use tongue more unequivocally and to adjust exercises with recommendations. Be that as it may this didn’t mean the conclusion of the worldwide war (rephrased in his inaugural address as a war “against a clearing arrangement of violence and disdain”), notwithstanding a scene of media babble in the going hand in hand with days about if the termination of a trademark intimated the completion of the war itself. Rather, it showed an alternate approach.

Inside hours of taking office the new president solicited the finish of the Guantánamo constrains office, and in the going with days he restricted detainee torture (all things considered) and re-secured the coupling compel of the Geneva Conventions on the United States. The new president moreover went on Arab TV to begin exchanging the difference that the United States is possessed with hatred against all Muslims or Islam, and publicized that the country has “a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world.” He declared, too, that his association may quit using the common Bush phrase, yet kept up that it “is especially fundamental for us to recognize that we have a battle or a war against some terrorist associations.” Obama’s articulations and developments anticipated that will cut the swelled performance that has portrayed the story. In place of a battle until the precise close between the qualities of outstanding and canny, the war was to transform into a human-measured crash between a state pledged to go about according to agreed controls of warfare and a sensibly for the most part described adversary.

The Patriot Act

The Patriot Act had elevated desires, for it was intended to remedy five discerned shortcomings, or disappointments, of the national government to anticipate the 9/11 outrage. It looked for 1) to enhance offering of data between law authorization and outside sagacity offices; 2) to assemble antiterrorism knowledge by exploiting the adaptable warrants necessity of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA); 3) to broaden wiretap power over electronic correspondences; 4) to seize subsidizing used in terrorist exercises; and 5) to infringe required confinement and expelling of non-U. S. natives who are associated with having connections to terrorist association (Christopher P. Banks. 2004. “Ensuring (or Destroying) Freedom through Law: The USA Patriot Act’s Constitutional Implications.” American National Security and Civil Liberties in an Era of Terrorism. David B. Cohen and John W. Wells. New York: Palgrave Macmillan).

The occasions of September 11, 2001 serve as the root of the United States’ War on Terror as advanced by the Bush organization. Awhile ago, American systems to battle terrorism kept tabs on strike against its hobbies abroad, and uphold for different governments’ endeavors to control terrorist acts inside their own particular borders. Notwithstanding, September 11 uncovered powerlessness to savagery by non-state performers inside U.S. fringes. Accordingly, the United States reshaped it’s against terrorist systems to counteract future assaults by focusing on terrorists, remote and household, known and potential.

To expedite the arraignment of terrorists, the United States Congress passed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, normally alluded to as the USA Patriot Act. Marked into law on October 26, 2001, the Act was sanctioned to dispense with behind the times laws that deterred reconnaissance and knowledge assembling exercises by government organizations. Since its reception, face off regarding has boiled over how stretched reconnaissance and sagacity assembling powers clash with common freedoms, both in principle and in practice.

A great part of the expositive expression held in this book reference analyzes the repercussions of the USA Patriot Act through the investigation of common emancipations. This thinks about the American attention civil and political rights, instead of the abstract of rights distinguished by global human rights conventions. The developing forms of lawful and scholarly written works on the Act and its usage reflect this.

U.S. Strategy

The United States verbalized its technique for this clash in February 2003 (and overhauled it in September 2006), entitled The National Strategy for Combating Terrorism. Before the occasions of 9/11, transnational terrorism was acknowledged a law implementation issue. Accompanying the 9/11 ambushes, al-Qaida and other similar bunches have been redefined as radical ideological developments with revolutionary ambitions.83 That there was no generally speaking intelligible U.s. procedure for managing this kind of danger before 9/11 postponed the brought together national exertion to manage an adversary that had pronounced war on the United States 3 prior years and that had as of recently done numerous assaults against the United States and its worldwide interests.

Ends: Goals and Objectives.

The present U.S. procedure depicts two macro-level key dreams. The main and fleeting objective is to execute or catch those people who have permanently stepped over the threshold of acceptability into savage fanaticism. The second and long haul objective is to make a nature’s turf that is ungracious to these and future vicious extremists. This vision in this manner distinguishes the closes that the United States might want to realize with this procedure. The long haul objective presupposes “winning the confrontation of ideas” by making the conditions that give individuals trust for what’s to come. This “ideological fight” is essential to taking out or at least extremely abridging the pool of potential selects accessible to the radical assemblies at war with the United States and the Western powers.

Ways: Concepts and Implementation.

The current U.S. strategy has identified six key actions necessary to achieve the ends identified. These six actions employ all the DIME instruments of national power.

  1. Prevent attacks by terrorist networks.

  2. Deny weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to rogue states and terrorist allies who seek to use them.

  3. Deny terrorists the support and sanctuary of rogue states.

  4. Deny terrorists control of any nation they would use as a base and launching pad for terror.

  5. Advance effective democracies as the long-term antidote to the ideology of terrorism.

  6. Lay the foundations and build the institutions and structures we need to carry the fight forward against terror and help ensure our ultimate success.


The War on Terror has a few attributes that look like prevention. One of them is the enemy’s longing to take part in an undesirable (to the individuals who wish to hinder) movement. In any case, since both sides present an altogether different picture of actuality, of their own inalienable goodness and the other’s characteristic disagreeableness, it is very nearly difficult to figure out with conviction if the enemy does indeed mean to do what bounteous purposeful publicity endeavors endeavor to persuade individuals that they do; making it epistemic partner more secure to judge if one side recognizes the different as being going to take part in the dreaded activity, instead of if they are “unbiased” going to take part in that movement. A critical foe hence is al Qaeda, and the U.s has demonstrated to its confidence in al Qaeda’s plan to execute the undesirable activities (terrorism), and has done much to accentuate this purpose

“…  We’re occupied with a worldwide war against an adversary that undermines all socialized countries.” “Our foes have unashamedly proclaimed that they are looking for weapons of mass decimation, and confirmation demonstrates that they are completing so with determination.”

“Through this procedure, al Qaeda and its associates mean to make various, decentralized working bases over the planet, from which they can arrange new ambushes, and development their vision of a bound together, totalitarian Islamic state that can face and in the end demolish the free planet.” “The Iranian administration and its terrorist substitutes have exhibited their eagerness to execute Americans… “

Different likenesses to discouragement that are shown by the War on Terror are the showing of American military capacity and eagerness to utilize that capability, which serve numerous purposes incorporating making tenability; and articulations of the expectation to “discipline” terrorist ambushes, which have been made unequivocally and certainly. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may be viewed as certain indications of the “discipline” expecting the individuals who debilitate American power, and additionally showings of American military deftness, however they have had their limits in serving those reasons. Express explanations of American readiness and physical ability have been made in broad daylight addresses, for instance

“…  We won’t rest, we won’t withdraw, and we won’t withdraw from the battle, until this risk to development has been uprooted.”

Unequivocal acknowledgment is made of discouragement as a methodology in the War on Terror, yet it is only one of numerous systems incorporated in the war, not a portrayal of the war itself another prevention math joins the need to discourage terrorists and supporters from examining a WMD strike and, failing that, actually preventing them from conducting the attack.

Whether the War on Terror has worked for its expressed purposes – American protection and making the planet freer and more serene – might hinge on if the U.S is more secure now than it was preceding its starting, and if any part of the planet is freer or more secure as an outcome. Consistent with their own National Intelligence Estimate America is not more secure . By tying up their assets in Iraq and Afghanistan, they lessen their own credibility. The War on Terror may be viewed as something of a disappointment in those respects. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and different puts straightforwardly influenced by the War on Terror have likewise not been ‘liberated’. The undemocratic Musharraf administration has been backed; Iraq has come to be more rough, caught Iraqis have been tortured and terrorism has ended up additional widespread there. Relations with Iran are decaying, and numerous on the planet fear the U.s more than terrorism. In those respects too, the War in Iraq appears to have been a failure.

The War on Terror is a preventive guarding procedure. This includes discouragement compellence however is not restricted to it, as a significant number of the methods it envelops succumb to the rubric of prevention compellence. For instance, attempting to anticipate scores arriving as terrorists, “democratizing” however much of the planet as could be expected and utilizing budgetary prizes are parts of the War on Terror, yet are not compellence or discouragement. The system for ‘battling terrorism’ is isolated into five parts propelling majority rules system, counteracting terrorist strike, denying haven to terrorists, denying terrorists control over countries and building establishments to help battle terrorism . The second is apparently preventive guard; the third may be translated to be so as may the fourth. The foremost and the fifth don’t include simply the utilization of power, and don’t succumb to the classifications of safeguard, compellence, prevention or swaggering. It is possible that the war is animosity blended with resistance, with the appearance of being truly protective. This might be upheld by the perception that one and potentially an alternate war has been launched by the U.s without incitement, and proclamations have been made easily that show an eagerness to dismissal the sway of different states, national integrity and human rights.


The War on Terror in general does not show compellence or discouragement, however it is  resistance blended with aggression; while some of the moves within it – to be specific the war in Iraq and America’s increased hostility towards Iran – are deterrent. The motives and conclusions in the situation are extremely complex. American actions in the War on Terror are going about as demonstrations of force in a few regards, and in addition debilitating in others (loss of troopers, vehicles, fuel, cash and so forth.). They could be intermixing fear in terrorizing characters on the planet, yet are likewise exciting scorn and outrage around others, a hefty portion of who are not effectively threatened.

Edited by Neerja Gurnani

Leave a Comment


There are ten ways to read more.And one of them is to subscribe to our newsletter. Yes! A bit of reading never hurts.

Give it a try, you can unsubscribe anytime :)

There are ten ways to read more.And one of them is to subscribe to our newsletter. Yes! A bit of reading never hurts.

Give it a try, you can unsubscribe anytime :)

Lawctopus Law School
Lawctopus Law School