The United States and the floundering war on terror Essay

The United States and the floundering war on terror - Essay Example The War on Terror which was initiated as a response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States initially showed great promise in ridding the world and the United States of the risks associated with terrorism. As the war on terror wore on without any definite progress being gained in fighting terrorism and in bringing the terrorists to justice, it became more apparent that the war was becoming an ineffectual means to resolve the terrorist issue. The war against terror appeared to be floundering. This chapter shall discuss the US and the floundering war on terror. This chapter shall also discuss the challenges being confronted by the Obama Administration and the way forward which can be gained from the years of war. Discussion The September 11 attacks resulted in the launching of the War on Terror and a support for President George W. Bush’s war against terror. Prior to the attacks, Bush’s administration was criticized for its international military policies. In the wake of the attacks however, a worldwide condemnation for terrorism was seen. And the war on terror raged over Afghanistan and over Iraq for years. It claimed many lives and caused the destruction of many communities and structures in Afghanistan and Iraq. As the war went on for years without much progress being gained in managing the terrorist issue, debates and rumblings on the war were slowly being expressed from various interest groups, countries, and organizations. And like another Vietnam War, the war on terror started to flounder and lose popular support. The terrorist attack in 2005 in London which was reportedly initiated by the Al Qaeda group was just one of the indications which pointed to the glaring truth that the War on Terrorism was not working. In 2004, the Bush Administration cancelled its publication of the yearly â€Å"Patterns of Global Terrorism† report which would have manifested that the terrorist attacks increased significantly from 17 5 in 2003 to 625 in 2004 (Gregory, 2005). Throughout the years, the War Party has been claiming that the War on Terrorism has successfully minimized the number of terrorist attacks throughout the globe; however, all other data seem to oppose this claim (Gregory, 2005). Other groups supporting the war on terror were also firm in their support for the war, even when Rumsfeld’s leaked report indicated the limitations of the US in fighting the war on terror. Rumsfeld’s report indicated that â€Å"the US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists’ costs of millions† (Gregory, 2005). Analysts pounced on the implications of this leaked report and they effectively pointed out that the war on terror could only be a failure because even with the necessary precautions taken against the war on ter ror, these terrorist attacks cannot really be stopped altogether. These analysts also point out that only by evaluating the US and Western policies in the Middle East which triggered violence, could any progress in the fight against terrorism be gained (Gregory, 2005). Critics of the war on terror also condemned Bush’s policy of preeminent strike or â€Å"strike first before anyone strikes us.† This attitude has been criticized for giving rise to policies which have been wholly ineffectual. â€Å"Behind the hype, there’s a long list of failures to tackle key issues, and not much prospect of improvement† (Plesch, 2002). For one, the government of Saudi Arabia expressed that it did not support the war on terror. Some Saudi citizens are actually members of the Al-Qaeda group or are supporting their efforts financially; and yet Bush is not aggressively dealing with Saudi Arabia (Plesch, 2002). US Special