The war on terrorism

U.S. FOREIGN POLICY and the GLOBAL WAR on TERROR

When the United States was attacked by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda on September 11, 2001, the Bush administration responded with a declaration of a "Global War on Terror" and an invasion of Afghanistan where intelligence reports had indicated the parties responsible for the attack were operating. In 2003, the U.S. launched an invasion of Iraq, which the Bush administration justified through (1) supposed connections between Saddam Hussein's regime and those responsible for the September 11th attacks, and (2) supposed evidence that Saddam Hussein was in the process of acquiring nuclear military capabilities.

In his comic strip, Joel Andreas seems to have mixed up some of the legitimate concerns and objections raised by those opposed to U.S. foreign policy and military intervention with some of those that represent biased positions less consistent with the facts than with anti-American rhetoric of the very type promoted by Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and other anti-Western Islamic militant extremists. To the extent the article is intended to present a balanced and accurate analysis of the geopolitical issues it raises, it does not succeed, primarily because it presents both legitimate concerns and criticisms and inaccurate rhetorical criticisms equally without distinguishing their respective degrees of validity.

Identifying the Author's Principal Line of Reasoning:

The author's principal line of reasoning seems to be that the U.S. involvement in the Middle East and its support of Israel in particular is the primary cause of the anti-American sentiments that culminated in the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks of 2001. Similarly, the author seems to equate the illegitimacy of the U.S. invasion of Iraq with the initial military response against al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and the legitimate concerns over nuclear (and other weapons of mass destruction) proliferation in unstable nations and regimes with the arsenals maintained by responsible nations. The author suggests that the U.S. is hypocritical in the way that it defines "terrorism" in a manner that excuses its own actions that are not that much different from the actions of some foreign nations that it criticizes harshly. Finally, the author makes the argument that national law enforcement authorities have abused their expanded authority under USA PATRIOT Act to the detriment of constitutional principles and civil rights under the guise of "Homeland Security."

Evaluating the Flaws in the Author's Principal Line of Reasoning:

The author's suggestion (p796 and 798) that the U.S. support of "corrupt" and "dictatorial" Middle Eastern regimes accurately applies to the manner in which the U.S. In general (and the Bush Administration in particular) have dealt with OPEC nations because of our dependence on their oil. However, the suggested equivalence of the (rightful) criticism of those relationships and support for Israel are fundamentally flawed and invalid. Specifically, the phrase "at the expense of the Palestinians" (p796) ignores the reality of how the Palestinian became "refugees" in the first place, the degree to which Israel tried to negotiate a fair settlement during the Clinton administration, and the degree to which corrupt Palestinian leaders undermined those efforts for personal gain and to perpetuate rather than end violence in the region.

The author also equates the justified and measured U.S. military response in Afghanistan in 2001 with the invasion of Iraq in 2003 under (what in retrospect was) a fabricated justification on the part of the Bush administration. Likewise, the author presents an inaccurate view of civilian casualties and ignores the tremendous extent to which the U.S. military has always made every possible attempt to limit them in wartime.

The author argues (p798) that both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have decreased rather than increased national security by "adding fuel" to the fire. While this is likely true with respect to Iraq, it is not true with respect to Afghanistan. More importantly, while any negative consequences associated with the latter engagement must be viewed as necessary and unavoidable, that is not true in the case of the former engagement.