Al Qaeda and War

War and Peace: The War on Terror The first time "war on terror" was used was in the aftermath of the infamous 9/11 al Qaeda attack. Even though this phrase has been used severally in passing to describe a wide variety of aims, policy guidelines and actions, the major moves made specifically under the direct explanation of the phrase is much more complex than just words. There are two major goals of the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, which was established in 2006.

The short-term aim of this strategy is to bring about a quick end to the al Qaeda group while its long-term aim is to create a worldwide intolerance for any form of terrorist groups and their affiliates. The objective of this study is to determine if the aims of this strategy and other programs on the front line on the war on terror has been achieved.

To do this, we have to answer a basic question first; what exactly does the War on Terror mean? Who are the opposition? Can we emerge victorious? The resources explored to answer these questions were all gotten by searching through the EBSCOhost archives as well as Google Scholar. The search keywords used were "War on terror" as well as "American war on terror". Some of the resources used are; official documents, reports, book reviews, research documents, articles and press releases.

This study applies the format of the UK's Research Assessment Exercise. Right from time, the basic and crucial aim of the American government was the total safety of the people and the country. Concerning the war on terror, President Bush's government set its targets on destroying al-Qaeda and its brother terrorist associations as well as establishing democratic governments, which would reduce their operating freedom. Terrorism is not a gigantic foe and it is not entirely focused on bringing down America.

It is simply a radical Islamic group, its supporters and sympathizers as well as countries in favour of its activities. In spite of the massive moves towards bringing an end to terror, research has clearly revealed that the major aims of this haven't been met and the situation has even exacerbated.

This inability on the part of the US to meet its aims on this war could be linked to its actions and rules which has spurred more and more people to be sympathetic with the terror organizations and hence made them stronger.

If the United States wants to put a quick end to this, it is crucial that it makes the citizens understand the workings of democracy, work together with current Middle Eastern leaders with the aim of educating their people on liberty and democracy and find a way of doing this in alignment with the regions' religious beliefs. Part One: Introduction 1. Background- Give a historical information for the reader On the 23rd August, 1996, Osama bin Laden publicly declared war against the United States via an Islamic degree (fatwa).

The major difference between this war and the previous ones the US has been involved in is that the enemy in this case had solely religion as their motive. Almost two years later, precisely the 22nd February, 1998, Osama made another fatwa this time enjoining every Muslim to take up arms and murder every civilian and military American and their friends. In August, 1998, al-Qaeda fighters concurrently attacked the American embassies located in Kenya and Tanzania where they killed over 200 people and injured several others.

These fighters believed that by their actions, they were starting off a jihad to protect their faith. They also has the notion that America were the initial aggressors in this war and had landed the first blow several years before the September 11 retaliation where hijacked planes were crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. America reacted to this attack by declaring war against al-Qaeda and terrorism generally. Early February, 2003, the American government led by President Bush released the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism.

This strategy was modified in September 2006. 2. What is it? The first time "war on terror" was used was in the aftermath of the infamous 9/11 al Qaeda attack. On September 20, 2001, while addressing the joint house of Congress, President Bush stated, "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there.

It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."[footnoteRef:1] From that moment, the phrase "war on terror" was adopted by the public, the media and even the government itself and represented the counter-strategies that will be put in place by the Bush's administration as well as the new sector of military activities and intelligence gathering established via newly developed anti-terror laws in the country. [1: Richard Ashby Wilson, ed. Human rights in the 'war on terror'.

1] Even though this phrase has been used severally in passing to describe a wide variety of aims, policy guidelines and actions, the major moves made specifically under the direct explanation of the phrase is much more complex than just words. Even though the basic aims of the war on terror has been pursued vigorously, several years later, the story of the war is filled with controversial accounts and unconfirmed immoral actions.

With these accounts of torture and other illegal acts becoming commonplace these days, there has been a growing agitation for accountability which can no longer be ignored. 3. Describe the causes or events The 9/11 attacks on America's Pentagon and World Trade Center didn't garner reactions from the United States alone. The attacks instead, caused a global awakening to the menace of terrorism and concerted "war on terror" was launched with the United States in the forefront.

This war has involved several battles in Middle Eastern countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and thousands have lost their lives as a result of this[footnoteRef:2]. [2: Amy Belasco, Cost of Iraq..., 23] The 2006 strategy called the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism focuses on the unique set of problems brought about by terrorism and aims to solve them via two strategic actions. The short-term action involves a total annihilation of al-Qaeda.

On this, the United States and its allies in this war has been quite successful in executing and imprisoning al-Qaeda leaders and soldiers and have run the group underground. Sadly, this terrorist organization bears certain similarities to the mythical Hydra as a successful execution of a member of the network only leads to two others taking up his/her place. Therefore, the long-term aim of the U.S. strategy is to foster an intolerant global atmosphere for terrorism and its activities[footnoteRef:3].

The identified path to take in realising these goals is to encourage democracy in Islamic nations. This move will bring about true progressive leaders rising to power and supplying the basic needs to the millions of Muslims who have boldly stood up against the acts of these terrorists but still want improved standards of living for themselves and their households. [3: Erik W. Goepner, Measuring the effectiveness of America's war on terror. 107] For over two years immediately after 9/11, al-Qaeda has been hit on all sides, leaders and followers and sympathizers alike.

Apart from the overthrow of the Taliban and numerous killings and imprisonments globally, a number of al-Qaeda leaders were arrested, their finances frozen and several further attacks stopped[footnoteRef:4]. Despite these, al-Qaeda were still able to meet and strategize and sometimes successfully carry out a number of attacks which showed an higher level of sophistication at their mercy compared to what they had before 9/11. For this reason, it would be quite erroneous and misleading for the U.S.

and its allies to claim the upper hand in the war against terror especially when considering the rise of the Islamic State and the other occurrences in the Middle East over sixteen years after 9/11. [4: Ibid] Problem Statement and the Significance of the Research President Bush and his officers made people understand that the war on terror was simply aimed at bringing those who coordinated and carried out the 9/11 attacks to justice. Despite this, this war has met with several setbacks over time.

Some of these includes the recall of the joint anti-terror forces such as the British as well as the notion that the war, instead of reducing terrorist activity is instead serving as an incentive for more people to join their ranks. Therefore, this research, which analyses just how far the war on terror has come, gives further knowledge on the details of the matter and also provides advice on the best way to go about it so as to achieve its basic goals of reducing or outright eliminating terrorism. 1.

Purpose of the Study The major aim of the war on terror is to bring an end to all form of terror activities with emphasis on the Middle Eastern al-Qaeda network and this is rightly represented in the 2006 National Strategy for Combating Terrorism. This research, however, aims to determine, from different points of view and wit the recent worldwide events occurring during the war, if the objective of this war has been achieved at all. 2.

Research Question In order to accurately achieve the above purpose, we have put forward three questions whose answers should help streamline our research; i. What exactly does the War on Terror mean? ii. Who are the opposition? iii. Can we emerge victorious? Parameters of the Study This research consulted previous studies which examined anti-terror wars and activities since 9/11. The favourable events that occurred immediately after 9/11 were brought to the fore. One of these is the increased interest on the topic and the cooperative effect it has had on researchers.

The concerted effort has caused a more vigorous approach towards information gathering despite a retained dependence on literary sources. Notwithstanding, an increase in the level of pragmatic and specific digit examination has been noticed. Application of deductive statistical analysis on field data from terrorist activities has experienced a threefold increase ever since 9/11 and this would have massive effects on the accuracy of the inferences drawn from studies[footnoteRef:5].

It is impossible to ignore the fact that these advances are still very much in infancy, especially when compared to the level of journalistic coverage of other sectors, nonetheless, it is obvious that this is a welcome development. [5: Andrew Silke, Research on terrorism] Focus of the study -- - How are you going to organize your paper Part Two: Research Design 1. Site and Sample The resources used in this research were gotten from the Google Scholar and EBSCOhost archives.

For both data sources, some of the resources used are; official documents, reports, book reviews, research documents, articles and press releases. 2. Research Methods For both online sources, phrases; "American war on terror" and "War on terror" were the search keywords used. The factors for selection were; document type and date of publication (which is preferably after 9/11) and the selected documents were further scanned for relevance of content. The scanning involved analysing the document's abstract/executive summary for relevance to the study. 3.

Model (theory) This report is formatted after the UK's Research Assessment Exercise[footnoteRef:6], a program that has certified that collaborative publications are always of better research quality. Due to this, this research is mostly concerned with journal publications within this period. [6: Ibid] Part Three: data organization Documents 1. Chronological Every document used and added as a reference were all written after the 9/11 attacks.

The exact times are quite different and have been selected in succession till present day publications in order to have a full grasp and picture of the war on terror. 2. Themes A close analysis of the selected documents shows certain trends. These trends include; what prompted the war on terror, the short-term effects caused by the war. Others are, after two years, what effect has the U.S.

foreign guidelines had on Middle Eastern countries which are majorly Muslims and what solutions have been identified during this battle against worldwide terror. 3. Organizations The selected sources were created and released by a variety of organizations which includes universities, personal researchers and government offices. Part Four: Analysis and Conclusion What entails the war on terror? The most important of the American government's function is to keep the American people and homeland safe.

Concerning the war on terror, President Bush's government set its targets on destroying al-Qaeda and its brother terrorist associations as well as establishing democratic governments which would reduce their operating freedom. Reassessing the strategy guidelines reveals that the safety of Americans and the American homeland is prioritized.

The next most crucial objective for the Bush's and Obama's government is the total destruction of al-Qaeda and its sister groups according to their respective strategy guidelines.[footnoteRef:7] On the strategy document, the objective is either ranked first (as it nullifies America's biggest threat) or second after keeping America safe by five of the guidelines. [7: Supra note 6] It still remains a bone of contention if fostering democratic principles is the next major aim of the war of terror.

The anti-terror strategy document released by President Bush's government had creation of an unfavourable environment, an action which directly involves adoption of democratic principles as the third on the list of objectives. In other sources, fostering democracy was seen as the conclusive solution for the problem of terror and as the most effective step in keeping the American homeland secure.

The enemy in the war on terror To fully understand the enemy here, we have to first realise that the US is fighting a war themed with religious and philosophical undertones. The Muslims believe their religion is the most superior of all; they have the notion that God himself gave Muslims the gift of guidance for the human race.

A large number of Muslims are of the belief that Islam is the only real religion for mankind and believe that if the world won't come to this realization peacefully, then it must be forced to come to the light and peace Islam provides. Thus, it is clear that the enemy has several definitions and can only be best described via an understanding of the different amounts of dedication shown by factions towards this new world order and thus, it is divided into three fairly different groups[footnoteRef:8].

[8: Ibid] The most radical of these groups are called the Revolutionary Islamic Vanguard. They comprise of small collection of people who strategize, undergo training and ultimately perform catastrophic acts against others all for the sole purpose of creating a worldwide Islamic order. This group are the most daring of all and their actions are a direct result of misguided and selective interpretation of the Holy Quran so as to justify their acts and stake a claim with the other sectors of Islam[footnoteRef:9].

An interesting fact concerning this group is they support Takfirism -- which is an ideology advocating the execution of people outside the faith, irrespective of their religion or nationality. [9: Supra, note 9] The next group has a bigger size compared to the Vanguard and cannot be easily described. This group doesn't have the intensity of the Vanguard and do not carry out violent acts, nonetheless, they are readily available for support in cash and kind for the Vanguard.

They are located across the globe and the bulk of them are based in the West from where they make the finances diverted to help the Vanguard. The final enemy group is made up of countries and huge business that also provide aid to the Vanguard. A popular example is Saudi Arabia which is a well-known backbone of Sunni activities. Saudi Arabia, however, has continually stated that it has withdrawn support for al-Qaeda since the 80's Afghan-Soviet war came to an end.

From the above, it is quite clear that the enemy in this war is not an enormous entity nor is it totally focused on taking down the United States. The other parts of Muslims who are not members of the three enemy groups are seen as friends and are the targets for the American anti-terror strategies. The possibility of victory on the war on terror The anti-terror war effort has been on a massive scale.

Over $4 trillion has been expended and about two-and-a-half million soldiers have gone on tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. has massively occupied two Islamic countries and has ordered missions into a further five which are Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya and Syria. Nonetheless, field statistics suggest that the major aims of these incursions have not been met and the situations in these areas have even exacerbated especially the strength and numbers of the radical Islamic groups. These U.S.

efforts might have caused even more sympathy for terrorism and they might have created situations which inspired people to swell the ranks of terror groups and actually perform terrorist actions. The effects of these situations were explained in full by Pape and Feldman[footnoteRef:10]. According to them, invasion by foreigners and inability of citizens to vote causes increased anger. Furthermore, they also make people understand that nations whose leaders have a relaxed disposition on terrorism increase the likelihood of an attack.

Also, the level of devastation and pain suffered by the Afghan and Iraqi people could have played a major role in increasing their belief of unfairness and caused increased sympathy towards terrorism. [10: Robert A. Pape and James K. Feldman. Cutting the fuse...104] This inability of the American efforts in meeting its aims in the war against terror could be caused by rules and actions which instead made people read positive meanings to the actions of radical groups and thus increased terrorist activities.

Initially, the American efforts caused a rise in inspiration levels, mostly due to objections and in some cases avarice, and this leads to a swelling of the terrorist numbers and later a higher number of terrorist attacks. Furthermore, the actions of the American government towards converting Afghanistan into and Iraq into democratic nations might have increased terrorist activities and sympathy. This action is also even less feasible.