U.S. Policy and the War on Terror: An Ineffective Strategy Since 9/11 the U.S. government has pursued a policy of combating terrorism with all of its resources (intelligence, technology, military, economic sanctions, etc.). However, the question remains, nearly a decade and a half later, with terror attacks occurring more and more frequently around the world, whether the U.S. has been effective in its countering of terrorism. According to various studies, it can be shown how far from actually eradicating terrorism, the policies of the U.S. government have actually helped to foster the spread of terrorism. Now, as Russia steps into the Middle East to fight ISIS at the request of Syria, a disinformation campaign in the West has been put into practice by the mainstream media to show how Russia and Syria are hurting the war against terrorism, when the reality is that Russia has been far more effective in hurting ISIS and affiliated terrorists in mere months than the U.S. has been over the course of years. This paper will show how and why the U.S. government policy since 9/11 has not been very effective in countering terrorism.

To understand the U.S. government's policy and how and why it has been ineffective so far in the fight against terrorism, it is necessary to understand the history of the actors involved. The policy writers within the U.S. government have had their own motivations for waging an ineffectual war on terrorism (or for waging an unending war, which is good for the business of the military-industrial complex as well as for the destabilization of Middle Eastern regimes that oppose Western corporate interests, such as the laying of oil and gas pipelines).[footnoteRef:1] In other words, "terrorism" provides a pretext for the policy writers even as that terrorism actually exists and is fostered by aspects of the policy (such as random bombings of Middle Eastern hospitals and weddings, drone strikes, disappearances, the arrest of diplomats, etc.).[footnoteRef:2] That ISIS has grown out of al-Qaeda, which grew out of the mujahedeen, which was supported by the U.S. to fight the Soviets is a mere matter of record.[footnoteRef:3] Understanding how it has been the policy of the U.S. to use the war on terror as an excuse to expand its own hegemonic interests in the Middle East is needed to see why the policy of "countering terrorism" has been so ineffective: it was never intended to be effective -- not in the way that the public has been lead to believe. [1: Pepe Escobar, "Syria: Ultimate Pipelineistan War." Information Clearing House, 9 Dec 2015. Web. 12 Dec 2015.] [2: Tyler Durden, "U.S. Bombs Afghanistan Hospital, Kills At Least 9 Doctors and 3 Children, Calls it 'Collateral Damage'." Zero Hedge, 3 Dec 2015. Web. 12 Dec 2015.] [3: William Engdahl, "What Stinks in Saudi Ain't the Camel Dung." Information Clearing House, 11 Dec 2015. Web. 12 Dec 2015.]

As Kayhan Barzegar notes, the "concept of terrorism" has been manipulated and used by policy writers to serve as a cover motive for real geopolitical aims.[footnoteRef:4] The War on Terrorism was given full-fledged support and encouragement on 20 September 2001 by leading members of The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), William Kristol and Richard Perle among many others of the so-called "neo-conservative" alliance, when they signed a letter to G. W. Bush which called for a "war on international terrorism."[footnoteRef:5] Pat Buchanan, one of the few political voices to warn against such an aim, criticized PNAC as a "cabal of intellectuals" out to revolutionize America.[footnoteRef:6] Kristol would later set his sights on eliminating oppositional voices, such as Buchanan and Ron Paul, admitting in 2012 at B'nai Jeshurun synagogue that he had been "encouraged" when Buchanan had been marginalized in the Presidential Elections and would be "happy" if Ron Paul were to "go." "[footnoteRef:7] So while on the face of it, the War on Terrorism is a necessary battle against al-Qaeda and affiliates (ISIS, etc.); underneath, it is a political ruse -- a gambit formulated by a highly-motivated group of Washington insiders and foisted on the American people through the strong arm of mainstream media. This paper will describe what the War on Terrorism is and what it is not. [4: Kayhan Barzegar, "The Terror Plot, An Ideological War for Geopolitical Interests," Iran Review, 24 Oct 2011. Web. 12 Dec 2015. ] [5: John Davis. Presidential Policies and the Road to the Second Iraq War. (VT: Ashgate, 2006), 51. ] [6: Ibid, 52.] [7: Pat Buchanan, "How Bill Kristol Purged the Arabists." Anti-War.com,...

Web. 12 Dec 2015. ]
William Kristol, PNAC chairman and editor of The Weekly Standard, Donald Kagan, Project co-chairman, Eliot Abrams of the National Security Council, John Bolton, Richard Perle, Thomas Donnelly, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and more. They formed PNAC in 1997, and wrote the blueprint for the "war on terror" in the 2000 paper called "Rebuilding America's Defenses." The 90-page paper called for "American global leadership" and anticipated a "new Pearl Harbor" as a catalyst for beefing up the Pentagon and maintaining "American military preeminence" in the world.[footnoteRef:8] PNAC pushed for the invasion of Iraq and PNAC member I. Lewis Libby promoted the reporting of fake evidence of yellow cake uranium being smuggled into Iraq to justify a military intervention. When former Ambassador Joseph Wilson challenged Libby and the White House, investigated the claims on his own, and proved them to be false in the national media, Libby outed Wilson's wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame, jeopardizing both her and her contacts abroad. Libby would later be convicted for this crime, but the "evidence" for mobile weapons labs in Iraq would be sold, with the help of Colin Powell, to the American people. The public would of course come to learn that no WMDs ever existed in Iraq -- but that did not matter to the PNAC members. American invasion of Iraq was part of their geopolitical plan [8: Thomas Donnelly, "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." Information Clearing House (2000), 50-51.]

Kristol admitted to purging Congress of anyone who was anti-Israel,[footnoteRef:9] which means the War on Terrorism had at its core a group of people supportive of one of the biggest terrorist states in the world.[footnoteRef:10] [9: Pat Buchanan, "How Bill Kristol Purged the Arabists." ] [10: Ryan Dawson, "War By Deception," Anti-Neocons, 20 Apr 2006. Web. 12 Dec 2015.]

The political rhetoric of the last ten years has become increasingly Orwellian. Political pundits, candidates, and representatives alike spout a "War IS Peace"-style propaganda. Senator Lindsay Graham called America a "battlefield" and the usage of chemical weapons in Syria this past year nearly took American forces toe-to-toe with the Middle Eastern allies of Russia and Iran. A peace plan did prevail at the eleventh hour, largely thanks to an off-the-cuff gaffe made by Kerry and the quick pick-up of Kerry's not-very-serious proposal by Russia. Syria, however, remains within the crosshairs of the PNAC members and recent talks with Iran have upset Israeli leaders, who believe their Middle Eastern neighbors are still planning to develop nuclear weapons.

The real goal of the War on Terrorism is perpetual war and perpetual war is good for business -- business for the military-industrial complex (MIC). Eisenhower warned of the rise of the MIC before he left office, but every Administration since him has continued to foster its ascent.[footnoteRef:11] In fact, it was even powerful before WWII was ever thought of. General Smedley Butler toured America in the 1930s denouncing the MIC, or the war profiteers as he called them.[footnoteRef:12] These same profiteers feed off the War on Terrorism today. Companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Halliburton (former Vice President Dick Cheney's own contracting company, which L. Steel called "the world's largest war profiteer"), all make up the new military-industrial complex (MIC).[footnoteRef:13] The MIC needs perpetual war just as badly as the Israeli lobby pushes for perpetual conflict in the Middle East: de-stabilizing countries is good for business. "Fighting Terrorism" is just a ploy. [11: Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick, The Untold History of the United States (NY: Gallery Books, 2012).] [12: Ibid.] [13: L. A. Steel, Naked at the MIC (IN: iUniverse, 2009), 196.]

Perpetual war has been the party line since 9/11 and the War on Terror is the perfect excuse for such. How can one win a war against an ideology known as Terror? It is a fanciful title designed to put fear into patriots. Episodic bombings and violent episodes remind the public that the War is not over. Proxy wars are fought over territories that offer geopolitical gains.

Nowhere is this better illustrated than in Ukraine. Unspeakable violence has erupted in a country that borders Russia. The U.S. has thrown its full support behind Russia's neighbors and vilified Putin as a "new" Stalin. But it was not Russia which shot down a civilian airliner.[footnoteRef:14] And it was not Russia who overthrew a democratically elected leader in Kiev. It was not Russia who had sights set on eliminating the Russian port in Crimea and…