Essay Undergraduate 2,216 words

The War on Terror: Sides, Obstacles, and Prospects for Change

~12 min read 6 sections Politics · World Politics

Abstract

This paper examines the ongoing political debate surrounding the War on Terror, beginning with the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed after 9/11 and continuing through the Trump administration's foreign policy shifts. The paper outlines the positions of both anti-war and pro-war advocates across party lines, analyzes the structural obstacles—including AIPAC lobbying, U.S.-Israel ties, and the Saudi alliance—that prevent meaningful reform of the AUMF, and evaluates the Corker-Kaine proposal as the most viable but still limited congressional response. The paper concludes that significant curtailment of presidential war powers is unlikely without major changes in congressional, Israeli, or White House leadership.

Key Takeaways

Introduction: AUMF origins, War on Terror scope, Trump-era shifts
Sides to the Issue: Anti-war vs. pro-war arguments across party lines
What Might Prevent Change: AIPAC, Israel, Saudi alliances blocking AUMF reform
How Change Would Occur: Corker-Kaine bill and congressional oversight options
The Possibilities for Change in the Future: Midterms, leadership shifts, and reform prospects
Conclusion: War powers unlikely curtailed without leadership change

✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾

What makes this paper effective

It organizes a complex, multi-sided political debate into a clear problem-cause-solution structure, moving from issue definition through obstacles to prospects for change.
It draws on a wide range of sources—polls, legislative proposals, opinion pieces, and news reporting—to ground its claims in current evidence rather than abstract argument.
It acknowledges the cross-partisan nature of the debate, noting that opposition to and support for the War on Terror spans Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Tea Party groups, which adds analytical nuance.

Key academic technique demonstrated

The paper effectively uses a power-structure analysis to explain policy inertia. Rather than simply describing who supports or opposes the War on Terror, it identifies the interlocking interests of the White House, Congress, Israel (via AIPAC), and Saudi Arabia as a "triumvirate of power" that constrains any legislative change. This kind of structural reasoning—explaining why change does not happen, not just that it hasn't—is a strong analytical move in political science writing.

Structure breakdown

The paper follows a six-part structure: an introduction establishing historical context and scope; a section mapping the opposing sides; a section identifying legislative and geopolitical obstacles; a section evaluating the Corker-Kaine reform proposal; a section assessing future prospects; and a brief conclusion. Each section builds logically on the previous one, maintaining a consistent argumentative thread throughout.

📘 Read the full essay guide → Build your outline → Generate a thesis → Generate citations → 📚 More World Politics examples →

Essay 2,216 words

Introduction

On September 20, 2001, President George W. Bush proposed the new Office of Homeland Security to help confront a new threat to national security—the first step in what became the War on Terrorism (Select Committee on Homeland Security, 2004). One week earlier, Congress had signed off on the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), allowing the president broad scope for using military force against countries or organizations that "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" terrorism (Ackerman & Hathaway, 2011). Seventeen years and more than $2 trillion later, the War on Terrorism continued with no sign of easing up (Amadeo, 2018).

Though President Trump ran a campaign on getting American soldiers out of the Middle East and letting other countries handle the ISIS threat, the War on Terror rhetoric out of the White House continued unabated, with sights set on regime change in Iran—a nation that Trump singled out as the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world. During his campaign, Trump had identified Saudi Arabia as the "world's biggest funder of terrorism" (Williams, 2018). This shift indicated a new alliance between the Saudis and the White House, and the potential likelihood of an escalation of conflict in the region, just as the ISIS threat in Syria appeared to be mitigating (Colling, 2016). So while some voters and politicians wanted the War on Terror to end, others supported its continuation. This paper discusses the sides of the debate and whether meaningful change is likely to come about in the near future.

5 Sections Hidden · 1,170 words

Sides to the Issue310 words

The sides to the issue of ending the War on Terror cross political affiliation and encompass Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Tea Party groups. Anti-war advocates are numerous as a result—but pro-war, pro-regime change, and…

What Might Prevent Change280 words

Repealing the AUMF did not appear to be a viable option for Congress at that time. The War was perceived as being won by the majority of…

How Change Would Occur270 words

For meaningful change to occur regarding the War on Terror and the president's authority to wage it, Congress would have to walk back the powers granted to the president in the aftermath of 9/11. Bush obtained a wide-ranging, broadly defined, and sweeping authority to use…

The Possibilities for Change in the Future200 words

Should Republicans lose seats in midterm elections, there might be greater willingness in Congress to address the AUMF—but this is no guarantee. AIPAC maintains tight influence over many congressional members, and Netanyahu has…

Conclusion110 words

While the AUMF was passed at a time when Americans wanted to secure the nation and hold terrorists and their sponsors accountable in the wake of 9/11, many Americans have since come to want the president's power to wage the War on Terror curtailed or subjected to meaningful congressional oversight. However, government policy on this matter is shaped largely by members…

View Full Document

References

Ackerman, B. & Hathaway, O. (2011). Did Congress approve America's longest war? Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/27/afghanistan-congress

Amadeo, K. (2018). War on terror facts, costs and timeline. Retrieved from https://www.thebalance.com/war-on-terror-facts-costs-timeline-3306300

Caldwell, L. & Salama, V. (2018). Congress wrestles with new war on terror authorization. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/congress-wrestles-new-war-terror-authorization-n865656

Cohen, K. (2015). Watch Netanyahu get 26 standing ovations during his speech to Congress. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/watch-netanyahu-get-26-standing-ovations-during-his-speech-to-congress

Colling, A. (2016). ISIS on ropes, but what comes next? Retrieved from https://theglobalobservatory.org/2016/06/isis-iraq-syria-kurds-al-baghdadi/

Epps, G. (2018). A bill to curtail the war forever, or extend it? Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/a-bill-to-stop-the-forever-war-or-extend-it/559769/

Everett, B. & Schor, E. (2018). GOP leaders shun debate on Trump's war powers. Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/16/republicans-war-powers-syria-527134

Fein, B. (2018). The Corker-Kaine resolution. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-corker-kaine-resolution-wont-keep-trump-from-starting-wars/2018/05/01/b75b192c-4cbc-11e8-85c1-9326c4511033_story.html

Herb, J. (2017). Senate rejects bid to repeal war authorizations. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/politics/senate-isis-war-vote/index.html

Hunter, M., Atta, N. & Hutchinson, B. (2018). Over 50 Palestinians are killed in massive protest. Retrieved from https://abcnews.go.com/International/dead-hundreds-injured-palestinians-protest-opening-us-embassy/story?id=55143043

Irish, J., El Gamal, R. & Holland, S. (2018). Europe licks wounds as Saudi Arabia and Israel hail Trump on Iran. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-diplomacy/europe-licks-wounds-as-saudi-arabia-and-israel-hail-trump-on-iran-idUSKBN1IA38C

Johnstone, C. (2018). That time John Bolton promised regime change in Iran before 2019. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/that-time-john-bolton-promised-regime-change-in-iran-before-2019-fa9be9dd2e5d

Langer, G. (2001). Poll: 2-1 support war on terror. Retrieved from https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=120969&page=1

Madison, L. (2012). Poll: Support for war in Afghanistan hits all-time low. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-support-for-war-in-afghanistan-hits-all-time-low/

Mullen, T. (2016). It's time to end the failed war on terrorism. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-mullen/its-time-to-end-the-failed_b_11965170.html

Price, R. (2015). Apple co-founder thinks Snowden total hero. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-co-founder-steve-wozniak-interview-edward-snowden-is-a-total-hero-2015-5

Rasmussen. (2018). War on terror update. Retrieved from http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/top_stories/war_on_terror_may01

Rossinow, D. (2018). The dark roots of AIPAC. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/03/06/the-dark-roots-of-aipac-americas-pro-israel-lobby/

Select Committee on Homeland Security. (2004). War on terror timeline. Retrieved from

Sputnik. (2018). Hezbollah deputy chief vows to defend Lebanon from Israel. Retrieved from https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201802221061902869-defend-lebanon-hezbollah-deputy-chief/

Williams, M. (2018). Is Iran really the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism? Retrieved from https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/is-iran-really-the-worlds-leading-state-sponsor-of-terror

Key Concepts in This Paper

War on Terror AUMF Presidential War Powers Corker-Kaine Bill AIPAC Lobbying Regime Change NSA Surveillance Iran Nuclear Deal ISIS Threat Congressional Oversight