War on Terrorism Is One

War on Terrorism

Terrorism is one of the most foundational threats that the world has ever seen. Terrorism is also a difficult threat as it is rarely if ever linked directly to a source nation, that has an official role in terrorist acts or movements. For this reason the "war on terror" is a war unlike any other war. The invasion and subsequent war in Iraq, despite its early connections to acts of terrorism has proven to be a war wholly ineffective in curbing, controlling or eradicating terrorism and it may in fact be feeding the idealism that is needed for acts of terrorism to take place. Many even claim that the war itself was begun as a persuasive tool for political reasons and was linked to terrorism as a way of giving the U.S. The impression that the administration was making a concrete step toward eradication of terrorism. Individual senators, opposition candidates and even eventually the voting public have become increasingly aware of this issue and the amount of propagandizing that surrounds it. ("Terrorism, Iraq War Shaped Campaigns" A01) in the 2004 presidential elections the voters were seeking security and the most logical leap was to designate a link, no matter how artificial between the two issues, the invasion of Iraq and the war on terror.

From start to finish, Mr. Graham said, "Bush made it his job to get the war issue front and center, because he was always seen by voters, in all polls, as the stronger leader. But he had to seal the deal with them that the war in Iraq was part of the war on terrorism, making domestic issues take a back seat..." ("Terrorism, Iraq War Shaped Campaigns" A01)

The importance and reality of this link are now being questioned at every level. People, in both high and low places are questioning the validity of the connection and asking if this aggressive move, on the part of the U.S., especailly in the face of international opposition was in fact appropriate to improve security in the U.S. Or her interests all over the world, or if the act served to increase the threat to the U.S., by making martyrs of a nation of presumable innocents.(Jones 26) the political positioning that has become increasingly obvious has undermined the faith of individuals in the nature and necessity of the War in Iraq, as people feel they were sold a bill of goods, rather than leveled with in regards to the strategic importance of the Iraq in the global war on terrorism in both the short- and long-term. In fact this work argues that the only connection between the war on terrorism and the War in Iraq is that the later has and will continue to serve to increase terrorist activities and actions against the U.S., no matter how the current government spins it.

This work will attempt to address these issues by defining the manner in which the war in Iraq and the war on terror are connected, if at all through an emphasis on primary sources and secondary facts. It is likely that the work will demonstrate through this analysis that the war on terror and the War in Iraq are not connected. In fact the war in Iraq is contraindicated for the long-term safety of the U.S., specifically with regard to future acts of terrorism, such as was seen on September 11th. The aggressive actions of the U.S. And the perception by the world of those actions and their source will likely create a greater international hatred for the U.S. than already exists.

To Americans, the word "Arab" conjures images of war, terrorism, and political Islam. To Arabs, the "United States" connotes a pro-Israel superpower that is occupying Iraq and imposing political and cultural changes. These stereotypes now run deep, and changing them is a long-term project. (Maluf 74)

Within the commentary that preceded the full invasion of Iraq and the subsequent designation of this action as war there are countless objections to full scale military action. Many of these experts had a keen eye for the issues associated with Islam and the region of the middle east, but especially Iraq and deemed any such action as an actual death sentence to the war on terror. ("American Policy and Islam..." A19)

Like ancient Gaul, Iraq is divided into three parts: the Shiite south, the Sunni center, and the Kurdish north. Any heavy bombing of Iraq, especially if combined with a massive invasion of the country by American ground forces, may cause Iraq to collapse into its constituent parts. ("American Policy and Islam..." A19)

It can certainly be argued that this has been exactly the outcome of the full military attack as Iraq is in a state of near complete political chaos precipitated by centuries old affiliations an regional strife.

A the potential for radical destabilization of the entire region is perhaps the greatest.... Is this scenario, too, really conducive to the promotion of American interests? American officials and American policy still do not get it. The sad truth is that the contradictions of U.S. policy towards Islam, combined with possible military action against Iraq, are only too likely to bring any progress in the war against terrorism to a screeching halt. Worse, any such military adventure is likely to breed new terrorists. ("American Policy and Islam..." A19)

It would seem that these educated warnings about the potential for full scale destabilization of the region, through military action in Iraq went unheeded as the full scale invasion was not only conducted but has since become another of America's long-term wars, now lasting more than 5 years, with no indication of a real end in sight, with regard to troop involvement and national spending and an estimated American military death count of more than 4,000 and an unknown civilian death count of more than 60,000. (www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5018332730"Antiwar.com NP) "The man confirmed last night as the next U.S. Defense Secretary yesterday conceded that the U.S. was not winning the war in Iraq and warned that if that country was not stabilized in the next year or two it could lead to a 'regional conflagration'." ("We Are Not Winning the War in Iraq..." 9) it would seem that those who questioned the efficacy of invading Iraq may see their prophecy of doom, realized, though it took the resignation of the U.S. Defense Secretary (Rumsfield), and the appointment of a new one (Gates) for these words to be voiced publicly by official representatives of the U.S. government. In late 2006 140,000 American troops were stationed in Iraq and even with the change of helm there is likely to be more by the close of 2007. "For the moment, the United States has 140,000 troops stationed in Iraq, where they shall remain, according to the Bush administration, until the Iraqi government can defend itself against internal subversion and mounting sectarian conflict." (Akerman 17)

In regard to the connection between the War in Iraq, currently being debated as a culmination of civil war obviously again fulfilling the fears of many, ("Reid Denies Claims..." 13) and weapons of mass destruction. The clear establishment of the production or the production capabilities of weapons of mass destruction was not made and in fact the claim that such weapons exist or existed in the past, and were available to the Iraqi regime has been openly discounted by international interests.

The problem with summary justice against terrorists is that it often ends up taking out the wrong target -- as in Bill Clinton's bombing with cruise missiles of the Shifa pharmaceuticals factory in Khartoum in August 1998. Clarke defends the destruction of the factory, but in truth it posed no threat to our way of life, unless we expected al-Qaeda to spray us with aspirins in the hope that we would overdose. (Cook 34)

There is little doubt that the actions of the U.S. In its invasion and subsequent war on Iraq will in retrospect be billed as similar in coarse to the Clinton bombing of the pharmaceutical factory but clearly much greater in scale. The war was engaged in regardless of the fact that the truths with regard to Iraq, Saddam Hussein and his actions as well as many other issues were convoluted and often built on myth rather than factual evidence. Myths range in severity from, Hussein's utilization of WMDs to kill his own people, an exaggeration to say the least and that Hussein had been actively attempting to build WMD, since "he" expelled inspectors from Iraq in 1998, again a falsehood. The development of this myth was pervasive though false, as Reece Kilgoe & Ritter point ou tit was actually President Clinton who expelled the UNSCOM weapons inspectors from Iraq, on the eve of the small scale attack of Iraq in December 1998, Operation Desert Fox, a 72-hour aerial bombardment of Iraq. They also go on to point out that Clinton expelled the inspectors without the consent or consultation of the UN Security Council who for all intents and purposes was the overseer of the inspection process and the inspectors. (Reese, Killgore & Ritter 22)

Another well documented myth is that Iraq and some active terrorist organization, of which Iraq is not one, have benefited from the dissolution of the Soviet Union, through the proliferation of Soviet weapons scientists and their knowledge.

A another fear of WMD proliferation was through Soviet "brain drain." Yet there has been no open-source evidence indicating that WMD materials or knowledge has reached terrorist hands from the breakup of the former Soviet Union. [61] Though the potential proliferation of weapons and expertise has to be taken seriously, several factors mitigate the danger of chem-bio defectors. First, most chemical and biological scientists who departed the Soviet Union have emigrated to the United States, Britain, Israel, and Germany for commercial jobs. Second, there is no evidence to suggest that scientists have alternately gone to Libya, Syria, North Korea, or Iraq to sell their weapons expertise. Third, some confidence can be gained from the professionalism and ingrained security culture of the scientists. Last, many scientists have family and cultural ties that make living in Pyongyang, Damascus, or Tripoli less appealing than remaining in Russia. And even where isolated incidents have occurred, the individuals have been in contact with state officials, not terrorist organizations. (Weiss 117)

The resulting truths seem to somehow escape the public and the U.S. government when making decisions with regard to the entrance of the U.S. In a full scale and almost solo invasion of Iraq and in fact the myths persist and even elaborate by additional myth creation of a direct social, political and financial connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda or at the very least Osama Bin Laden. "The CIA has been unable to tie Iraq to the September 11 attacks. Cheney speculates about a 'potential marriage' between terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda and Iraq. But no concrete evidence of a link has been forthcoming." (Cohn 25) in other words there is no real connection between the Iraq government and Al-Qaeda other than the fact that terrorist organizations' ideologies, such as those of Al Qaeda, are similar to many others and are fed by U.S. aggression which it sees as unfounded and central to attacking the values of Islam. (Cohn 25)

New York Times, January 27, 2001, A1 (Secretary of State Colin Powell says no evidence links Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks); James Risen, "Iraq -- Terror Acts by Baghdad Have Waned, U.S. Aides Say," New York Times, February 6, 2002, A10 ("The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al-Qaeda or related terrorist groups, according to several American intelligence officials."). (Cohn 25)

Though there is little doubt among even the most ardent of war supporters that the U.S. invasion of Iraq will serve as not a point of resolution of terrorist activity but fodder for continued terrorist hatred of U.S. aggression and potentially further acts of violence, we are now so invested in the war that little can be done to extricate the U.S. without creating additional destabilizing forces in the region.

In short the politcalization and propagandizing of this conflict, that allowed it to begin on the eve of American fear of 9/11 like attacks occurring in the future, has created a situation where there is no doubt that they will. The U.S. led war on Iraq, will serve as ammunition for the existing and soon to be extremists that would be most likely to attack the U.S. And her international interests in the future. There are already so many strikes against the U.S. On this list that there was little real need to add more to the fodder, though out of fear and misguided ideas we seem to have done just that by invading Iraq and continuing to be seen and represented as blind aggressors against Islam. (Preble 20) the Abu Ghraib prison scandal is just one example of how a picture is worth a thousand words and how the world will likely continue to see the U.S. As an aggressor. "The shocking abuse and sexual humiliation that occurred at Abu Ghraib prison in 2003 and 2004 was the work of "corrupt cops" who acted for their own enjoyment and without the sanction of their commanders..." (Kiehl NP) Regardless of their representative "sanction" by supervisors these men and women openly degrading the strict cultural faith of Islam are wearing the uniforms of U.S. soldiers and representing the whole. These are the pictures that will endure and fee the fundamentalist camps that breed terrorists. There were many pictures available to fundamentalists prior to this event but the fresh ones serve not to control the situation but feed the ideology of international hatred for the aggressive U.S.

Conclusion:

The foundational reasons for the war on terror are real, and a reasonable course should be taken to reduce this threat, in a multi-causal and multi-solution manner, but reaffirming that there is some connection between the Iraq war and the war on terror is irresponsible to say the least, as the truth has been evident for more than the length of the Iraq war itself that the repercussions of this aggression are more likely to worsen rather than diffuse the situation. It has also been clear for some time that there is no connection between Iraq and the terrorism that has already shaken the foundation of the nation. Those who argue that sometimes it is darkest before the dawn and that there is a need to make things worse before they can get better need to reevaluate their reasoning and recount the destructive toll of this modern U.S. aggression.

The shocking truth that emerges from Clarke's account is that after 11 September, the Bush administration did not see international terrorism as a threat but as an opportunity. It enabled the White House to secure the support of the U.S. public, and more perplexingly that of Downing Street, for an invasion of Iraq falsely packaged as part of the "war on terrorism." (Cook 34)