Global War on Terror United States' stand on terrorism has come under serious criticism since 9/11 terrorists attacks. Not only the other countries are critical about the global war on terrorism, but the Americans also are actively criticizing their own actions because of the futility of actions they have witnessed so far.

The ongoing turbulence and security issues had forced United State to change the foreign policy and this has raised several questions about the global war on terrorism. It is important and vital for the foreign policy maker of United States to decide whether to pursue an idealistic situation and force other countries to do the same, where there are no issues, problems, or for instance no war or to deal with the reality as it is.

The American military actions are facing several challenges and issues since the 11th September attacks. The country is facing the problems and threats because of building terrorist networks that are deploying military troops at several locations, building various training camps, and are gathering and accreting weapons; the growing missiles and nuclear weapons testing in North Korea; the growing trend of activism in Iran and efforts done to acquire their own nuclear weapon store; the increasing dominance and control of Taliban in Afghanistan; and the worsening conditions of Iraq which are leading towards civil war. Apart from this the other two main economies of world, China and Russia, are going after their own personal interests and benefits even at the expense of others benefits and interests (Council Foreign Relations, 2006).

The policies of United States have been under serious criticism and questions since the start of 'war against terrorism'. Different countries have shown their concern and reservations about the increasing American intervention in the affairs and issues of other countries, just to pursue the national interests of United States. The American government is not able to communicate and convince the critics over the fact that the American policies are for the global benefits and welfare. The main reason behind this is that the people of United States themselves are still stuck in the debate between idealism and realism. The government itself is not able to decide about the nature of the foreign policy and there have been ongoing internal conflicts.

The critics are of the view that the foreign policy of America is too realistic and country is only looking to fulfill the national interests and is using the power to interfere in other countries' operations and matters in order to meet persona and national interests. The claim of America about global peace and freedom is just a tool to achieve the national goals and interests. Because of this perception there increasing hatred against American policies especially among people of the countries that are being invaded. The world's concern over American policies increased after the flop experiment of President Bush with the concept of unilateralism (Richardson, 2008).

The present government is trying to address this issue and problem and is trying to promote a positive image of the country by communicating the global interests...

The government of America is not able to communicate well the global interests behind the 'war against terrorism', and it is being perceived as a state created by America in order to fulfill the national interests and goals.
The military action of United States in Afghanistan and Iraq has created a negative perception and has increased hatred against Americans. The increased interventions of United States in the matters of other countries have also contributed this issue and challenge of negative perception about the country. And most importantly, the policy makers and politicians of America themselves are arguing about the realistic and idealistic approaches of foreign policy.

This issue and challenge can be solved by portraying a more idealistic approach towards foreign policy and by communicating well to the world that the aim or goal behind the foreign policy is the peace and harmony all over the globe. Apart from this there should be harmony and consensus amongst Americans about the approach of foreign policy; if they will agree on one single approach and will own it they will be able to communicate the benefits of foreign policy to other world more effectively and will able to support their stance.

WHY CHOOSE A MIDDLE GROUND ON WAR ON TERRORISM

The greatest threat to the stability of the U.S. comes not from any outside sources but from USA's response to those outside sources. Terrorism may be a threat but it is our response to threat that will become most dangerous for the U.S. In the long run. We need to stop using terrorism as an excuse to launch military intervention in various parts of the world and instead we must understand that if we stay focused on our own internal problems and how our foreign relations are creating a wave of animosity against the U.S., we can better protect our nation and our national interest.

The U.S. has failed to understand that American intervention in most part of the world was neither wanted nor welcomed. If only America could see how its forced intervention is creating problems for its stability, it would benefit from it. The danger against radical Islam has been so overly exaggerated that it is resulted in these:

a. It has turned the Muslim world against America and its values

b. It has made most Muslims move even closer to their own religious values in an effort to protect their religious sovereignty

c. It has definitely angered a wide section of Muslims some of whom may go on to join radical forces.

We must understand that radical Islam did not emerge suddenly on September 11, 2001 instead it was the result of various actions previously taken by the U.S. that had generated a wave of anti-American sentiment in the Arab world. America's constant support of Israel against Palestine is one important example of the damage done by American foreign policy to our national interest. Instead of providing support to Israel simply because it was not ISLAMIC and is fighting against people of Islam, America is sending out one message loud and clear: i.e. we are not just or fair, we just want to favor anyone who is against Islam. This is because had the U.S. actually been just, it would never support Israel because Israel forcefully tried to capture a part of Palestine that always belonged to Palestine. It was indeed something intensely wrong and one that turned the Arab world against America. Now if in the process, a radical version of Islam emerged then who is to blame here?

No one is more likely to suffer from American foreign policies than America itself. And thus I fully support Francis Fukiyama's non-military action theory. He proposed that instead of using military intervention and then hoping everything would turn in America's favor, America needs to use non-military actions in troubled zones to get the best results and still keep friendly relations with the Islamic world. We need to understand that by forging a policy of anti-Islamism, America is not hurting anyone but itself. There has recently been much a wave of conversion to Islam in various part of the world. This only goes to show that despite America's views, those who want to follow Islam or want to learn more about this religion, continue to do so. And with more people entering Islam, it is even wise to wage a war against Islam or even a war against any Muslim country? Of course not, there is great strength in numbers and when it comes to numbers, Islam is not far behind Christianity. We need to develop a better foreign policy…