S O
HUM 225
Ethics: War on Terrorism
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Americans pondered the thought that the war on terrorism is unjust. Many Americans believe that our government’s reasons for fighting this war are for money, greed, and oil reserves. But truth be told and if Americans and the world at large could consider the interests and safety of the wider society against the terror groups, then there could be no question as to why America is so serious about the post 9/11 war on terrorist groups. America’s ultimate interest on this war serves not only it but also other sovereign nations against small insurgent groups out to threaten world peace.
The War on Terrorism was put into place after the horrific events of September 11, 2001. Outraged by these attacks, President George W. Bush declared in his speech to the nation, “This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice and peace. America has stood down enemies before, and we will do so this time. None of us will ever forget this day, yet we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world.”(CNN U.S. 2001). Despite the national need to protect the security and United States interests at home and abroad, The War on Terrorism has gained enormous controversy domestically and internationally.
In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the US Department of Homeland Security and the Passage of the US Patriot Act were created. This granted the government agencies powers of surveillance and search and seizure. The Iraq War and the falling of Saddam Hussein regime occurred, because of the development of weapons of mass destruction. When no weapons of mass destruction were located, many Americans felt the war was not justified.
What is terrorism? “Terrorism is violence – or the threat of violence – used to achieve a political goal (Current Issues 2010).” What is war?War is a military action formally undertaken by a government (Current Issues 2010).” Now with the two definitions it can be determined if the terrorist attacks warranted war. In my opinion, I believe that by President Bush declaring War on Terrorism was of the ethical theory Utilitarianism. This action was right for the majority, at least at the time because it was to serve the good of all Americans who had been aggrieved by the attacks of 9/11. But again, it is for a fact that the attacks had done Americans great harm and immediate action was imperative because the governing authority could not just sit and watch terrorists get away with their actions
The attacks on 9/11 were aimed at killing and harming the citizens of the United States of America. These attacks killed thousands of people. The attacks were made by the Al- Qaeda, an Afghanistan terrorist group. “The United States had a just cause for the war in Afghanistan because war was necessary to stop the Al- Qaeda, a legitimate threat, from attacking again.” (Asad, T. 2010, p.4). When nothing else will stop a terroristic attack, war is just because the attack has to be stopped anyway because it goes against social norms. After the attacks the United States had no other choice but to declare war. President George W. Bush at the time thought this was the only way to make the terrorists stop their attacks and have American people sleep easy at night.
While many Americans view American military action in the War on Terrorism as being a cover for exploiting the oil-rich reserves of Arab nations, Mylroie (2001) argues that U.S. policy would be misguided if it would not consider that powerful states are backing terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. Mylroie argues that terrorist coalitions could not survive or be effective without the backing of Arab states. She insists that animosity toward the U.S. by such states is real and is manifested in their support of terrorist groups intent on attacking U.S. interests.
Mylroie (2001) definitely believes there is evidence that links Osama bin Laden to Iraq, in relation to the terrorist attacks of September 11, despite intelligence producing evidence of WMDs in Iraq, “We already have a number of clues to show us that Iraq is probably involved. Bin Laden has known ties to Iraqi intelligence. Bin Laden’s aims, moreover, also coincide with Iraq’s agenda. In Baghdad alone, some Iraqis have in the past demonstrated in support of Bin Laden.” (p. 252).
McCauley, C &Scheckter, S. did a study to explore the subject of war on terrorism. Seven groups of people were involved in this study, “African-American Muslims and Muslims born in Iran, Pakistan, other South Asian countries, Arab countries, European countries, and sub-Saharan African countries. From all the seven groups, half or more of the respondents did not believe the US war on terrorism is sincere. Yet less than ten percent had favorable opinions of Al-Qaeda or justified suicide bombings in defense of Islam.” (McCauley, C. &Scheckter S. 2010).
Despite views like the one above, the War on Terrorism demands that Americans understand a certain sacrifice of civil liberties is necessary to protect Americans and America’s interests from the aims of terrorists who are intent on wrecking havoc on the American society. The expanded liberties sought by the U.S. government are in line with the realistic threat posed by terrorists groups like al-Qaeda. Without certain curbs on individual liberties the rule of law and order becomes jeopardized by those who abuse those freedoms to commit acts of terrorism.
Ironically, there are many experts on terrorism familiar with U.S. policy and that of terrorist organizations and the states that sponsor them that argue the U.S. is extremely vulnerable to terrorist infiltration especially because of the broad civil liberties and freedoms enjoyed by Americans. Many of these experts say that the terrorists could have a small attack planned, but the small attacks will then turn into a bigger deal. “There is always a potential for terrorist groups to try to strike out and take revenge,” Brennan told reporters at a White House news conference. But he added that the message of the successful U.S. strike against bin Laden was that the “al-Qaeda narrative is increasingly bankrupt.” (Halsey, A. 2011).
A free and open society like the U.S. is inherently vulnerable to such attacks and to the incursion of radical, militant, terror-oriented groups and individuals. Islamic extremist terrorist organizations, says Emerson (2002), have taken full advantage of the “open” nature of American society along with the “soft” and ultimately inadequate oversight of law enforcement and intelligence-gathering agencies such as the FBI, INS and CIA and have become capable of coordinating their activities from within the borders of the United States (pp. 2-3).
The past decade leaves a lot of questions unanswered and such include, what does the United States have to show for its efforts on The War on Terror? Depending, on how winning is measured, it is the determinant factor that will determine if we are in fact winning this war. Asad, T. states that the killing of Osama bin Laden was one of the greatest successes of the war. “But the cost of vengeance (instead of justice) has also been high:
•A further turn towards hatred and a rise in those who think most Muslims are terrorists, that Islam is a threat to the world, etc.
•Wars that have seen far more than the 3,500 deaths that the US saw, and a self-fulfilling prophecy; creating more anger and resentment against the US, more potential terrorists, and the complete opposite of what the neo-cons wanted; global downturn and US decline instead consolidating their power and position in the world.
•Over 6,000 US soldiers killed in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Possibly 100 times that number of civilians in those countries (in Iraq, at an early point, there was an estimated range of 400,000 to 900,000 civilian deaths, which of course Bush had to reject, claiming it used flawed techniques, even though it used estimation techniques his own government agencies taught others to use).” (Asad, T. 2010)
Even though the United States has lost many brave soldiers and many have had many injuries, the American people will always prosper in this war. It is hard to state who is winning and who is losing because of the number of causalities. You cannot go by the number of deaths of regular civilian or military people. The Americans took down two big guys in the War on Terror, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. That is a great and major success for the War on Terror. With these two guys done with, people are hopeful that the end of war is coming. During the operation to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden, I happened to be deployed in Musa Qu’la North Helmand Province Afghanistan. My unit was briefed that fear of retaliation would occur during or after Ramadan which is a Muslim holiday.
In conclusion, the War on Terrorism is a complex U.S government policy that has many aspects that are controversial to Americans. The threat of ongoing terrorist attacks on the U.S. at home and abroad demands that the government moves fast to make the nation secure through expanded powers of surveillance, search as well as seizure. Only those who truly believe the U.S. government and its leaders are in a conspiracy to prosecute and harass innocent Americans can believe that a small impingement of civil liberties is not worth the protection of all Americans and our interests domestically and internationally. Americans must be intelligent enough to recognize that we must curb some freedoms in order to secure others that are much more valuable, like the right to live, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in a terrorist-free and peaceful nation.
Works Cited
Asad, T. (2010). Thinking about terrorism and just war. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 38-54.
Emerson, S. (2002). American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us. New York: The Free Press.
McCauley C., &. S. (2010). Reactions to the Waron Terrorism: Origin-Group Differences in the 2007 Pew Poll of U.S. Muslims. Perspectives on Terrorism, 38-54.
Mylroie, L. (2001). The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks. New York: Harper Collins.
Shah, A. (n.d.).Global Issues. Retrieved from Global Issues: www.globalissues.org
“ Terrorism.” Current Issues: Macmillan Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010.
Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 16 May 2013.
