Is the War on Terrorism a War Essay

The Global War on terrorist act is a military campaign that began shortly subsequently the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001. First used by George W. Bush, the phrase contend on terror has give appearance to be conceptualized as a term used to signify global military, political, lawful, and conceptual assay targeting twain organizations designated as terrorists and regimes accused of supporting them. The contendfare on terror main focus has been with Islamist militants and al-Qaida.The struggle in Afghanistan and Iraq ar both considered to be part of the fight on act of terrorism. There is much speculation on whether the struggle on terror is unfeignedly a war. This essay will argue that both points of suasion are valid. There are reasons which validate the war on terrorism as being considered an actual war such(prenominal) as the fact that an actual decelaration of war was waged by both the US and Al-Qaeda, it drive out be considered a new way of war, and that ultimately like war, terrorism is a mean to a political end.On the other side of the spectrum, it may non be considered a war because it does not have a open air end or possible victory, it does not have a control battle space as regular wars, and it is a war against an immaterial concept such as the wars on poverty, drugs, and crime. There is an extensive amount of literature on the subject of terrorism and especiall(a)y the war on terror. Mia Bloom in Dying to Kill The each(prenominal)ure of Suicide Terror examines the use strategies, successes, and failures of self-destruction bombing in Asia, the Middle East, and Europe.She claims that in m any(prenominal) instances the effort of Israel, Russia, and the United States have failed to deter terrorism and suicide bombings. Bloom also contemplates how terrorist groups learn from 1 another, and thus how they react and retaliate to counterterror plays the support of terrorism, and the role of suicide attacks against the bac kdrop of larger ethnic and political conflicts. Another current scholar create verbally on terrorism is Mark Juergensmeyer. Juergensmeyer studies religious terrorism more specifically. Bruce Hoffman gives a brilliant insight to terrorism and all its aspects.Hoffman describes its historical evolution and the mindset of the terrorist. He examines this invisible enemy and his tactics and motivation in a globalized world. Hoffman argues that the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers radically altered the USAs and the westernmosts location on terrorism. When attempting to answer the above question it is important to clarify and describe the terms. Terrorism has a ample number of definitions and varies greatly depending on who is trying to define it and from what perspective it is being defined and at which scope.For practice session star definition of terrorism is the FBIs definition of it as the unlawful use of force or emphasis against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Go vernment, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in further political or social objectives. Another definition is from the surgical incision of defense reaction which states it to be as the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological objectives.A final example of one of the many definitions of terrorism is that of the Department of homeland Security which states it as any activity that involves an act that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critic infrastructure or key resources andmust also appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. These definitions vary quite greatly from on e to another.Any definition of terrorism suits a particular agency and how they look at the act of violence, whereas very(prenominal) few look at the causes for it and what its sum of money is. Notice the selected vocabulary for each definition will suit the type of agencys profile. The paradox with defining terrorism is one that it is a subjective thing, and two that the parties trying to define it try to complicate everything and nothing in it. They try to put and various different events that happened and situations as well to help define it so as to make sure that terrorism encompasses a large number of things.For example the disco bombing of Bali. It seems that the definitions need to include anything that attacks the west. With regards to the war on terror, is it the war on terror or terrorism? Is there really a war on terrorism and if so according to whom? The USA? Al-Qaeda? And in which theatres and locations are we talking about? The war on terror might be a war on terr or in Afghanistan unless not in other places. Also the call of the question is quite ambiguous because is terrorism is an act of war, or is war is an act of terrorism? from each one one can be unfolded onto the other easily.It is also important to consider who is included in the war on terror, is it all terrorists groups including terrorist groups like the IRA? Or is it just limited to Islamist militant terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda? It is not always actualize who are the terrorists and who are the terrorized All politics is a struggle for power, and the ultimate kind of power is violence. Hoffman writes that terrorism is where politics and violence intersect in the hope of delivering power. And that all terrorism involves a quest for power. Power to do many things such as to dominate, coerce, control nevertheless ultimately to effect fundamental political change.Clausewitzs definition of war was war is the continuation of pursue by other means. In this context terrorism fits in accordance to his definition as terrorism too can be considered part of war. Terrorism can be considered a tactic or act of war, or war a tactic or act of terrorism. For example the cut used torture during the Battle of Algiers, the US uses terror tactics itself such as Abu Ghraib. It is very troublesome to separate war from terrorism neatly. Being a terrorist is a stepping-stone to becoming a politician.Thus because of the very ambiguous relationship and line between war and terrorism, terrorism can be considered as a new way, or military tactic of fighting war. Thus anything that tries to counter attack it can also be considered a war. Thus rending the war on terrorism a war. Terrorism is a complex phenomena in which violence is used to obtain political power to readdress grievances In ball club for one to consider the war on terrorism as an actual war, an actual statement of waging war has had to been made. This is the baptistry with the war on terrorism. Al-Qaeda di d declare war on the USA in 1998.The bush judiciary created the term of the axis of evil and the USA did fight a conventional war in Iraq in 2003. The war on terrorism might not be a war in itself but it could be made up and composed by several on waiver wars such as Chechnya, the government of Sri Lanka versus the Tumult Tigers (which was actually the first country to successfully defeat terrorism), and Mali. There have been clear objectives set out and enemies to defeat. Although this enemy is invisible, and the way of fighting the battles are different (due to the asymmetrical aspect of the war on terror) it does not mean this is not a war.The rules have changed, the battle space as well, the way of thinking of the enemy and war has changed drastically. But it is dormant war. It is just a new face of war. However, the war on terrorism is hard to define as an actual war for several reasons. One, because it seems the US and the West are just policing and engaging in nation build ing to promote liberal democracy. Hoffman mentions the second factor, which is immensely important in discrediting the war on terrorism as a war stating that unlike handed-down wars, the war on terror does not have a clear end. This is because the victory seems unattainable.Terrorism wont die along with the terrorist leaders. Not even when the most wanted terrorist has been killed. DCIA Leon E. Panetta stated that I move intot think theres any question that when you get the number one terrorist in the world, that were a little safer today than we were when he was alive. But I also dont think we ought to kid ourselves that killing Usama Bin Ladin kills al-Qaida. Al-Qaida still remains a threat, theyre still going to try to attack our country, and I think we have to shroud to be vigilant and continue the effort to ultimately defeat these guys.We damaged them, but we still have to defeat them. In order for a war to be a war, shouldnt it have a clear end? Or at least a possible one? The war on terrorism also is ignore as being an actual war because it does not take place on a clear battle space. The director of public prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald quoted London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on July 7 2005 were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, soldiers.They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists. We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London, there is no such thing as a war on terror, just as there can be no such thing as a war on drugs He continues by stating that the fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement. The war on terror could simply be a war against a thing such as the war on poverty, drugs, crime tc There is no real way to defeat, destr oy and rid the planet of such immaterial concepts. The war on terrorism looked under these aspects becomes more difficult to truly accept as a war. It is difficult to answer the question if whether the war on terrorism is an actual war. It appears that there is a struggle between Al-Qaeda fighting secularism, consumerism, and immorality and the US and the West is fighting against backwardness and against groups of muckle who reject western values and globalization. Is this what the real war being fought is about? Is this the actual war that is going on?There are both aspects crediting the war on terrorism as a war and others discrediting it. This question however is highly relevant and intertwines to other aspects of IR305 such as the changing nature of war (is the war on terror the new type of war? ), the different types of warfare (is the war on terror the new western way of warfare and terrorism the Arab way of warfare? ), and the topic of attempt societies (are we breeding mor e terrorism by fighting the war on terror, thus creating more risk). All of these various aspects of IR305 are relevant to the topic of the war on terrorism.