Today in class, we talked about how the War on Terror has
the potential to be, and so far has been, a war with an endless number of
goals. We’ve already seen evidence of this—“Mission Accomplished” banners, the
killing of Bin Laden—and yet the war continues. And yet when the war began, it
seemed more like the goal was clear: to
prevent another attack by stopping the group that was responsible.
In my
opinion, the problem with the War on Terror is pretty simple. In the beginning,
the war was based on the U.S. being reactive to 9/11; the point was, in fact,
to go after the people responsible for the attacks that had already taken
place. The problem occurred when the U.S. leaders and military personnel
shifted their focus from being reactive to proactive.
When a
country tries to act proactively, stamping out threats as they arise, the
situation quickly devolves into paranoia. As Sontag pointed out, the threat is
never-ending. Because of this, the war itself cannot end with satisfying
results. Or as was accurately pointed out in class, new threats can be manufactured
every day.
In just
war theory, just cause is necessary for a war to be considered just. Whether or
not it is just to preemptively kill citizens with suspected links to al-Qaeda
is up for debate. But if the United States’ historical record is any
indication, preemptive wars very well may continue. The War on Terror is
comparable to Cold War containment policy, in that it appears the goal is to
rid the world of all anti-U.S. terrorism, for fear that it will have a domino
effect. It seems to me that if containment policy was perpetuated relatively
undeterred, the War on Terror very well may continue as it has. And that is
truly terrifying.
Mike, I would definitely agree with pretty much everything that you said in the above blog post. To me, it seems like the goal of America regarding the War on Terror is not only to rid the world of anti-American terrorism... but also to create as many democracies in the world as possible. I remember learning about what was called the Democratic Peace Theory in my class on International Relations. Basically, proponents of this theory want to create as many democracies as possible throughout the rest of the world because democracies almost never fight one another. But how realistic is this goal? That is the question. Not every country is going to want to be a democracy, and not every country is going to accept American values of freedom as we do. We have become extremely naive if America thinks that the threats against it will stop if this war is perpetuated. In fact, it seems to me that Americans hear a great deal more about the threats against our country now than we did before the war started. When will the government come to the conclusion that terrorism has been around for centuries and will continue to be around in the future, regardless of the War on Terror? Terrible acts happen around the world daily, some happen very near to us. It is extremely important to remain vigilant in our preventing attacks like 9/11 from happening again. However, we need to draw the line between vigilance and paranoia.
ReplyDeleteMike and John, thanks for your posts. The question that I would add is, can one "create" democracies from the outside, or do they have to emerge from within? If you just depose a dictator, what responsibility do you have to maintain security and develop the country?
ReplyDeleteDr. Metres, I'd have to say that to a certain point it is the responsibility of whoever deposed the dictator or other government leader to maintain security and develop the country. I think what makes this situation so problematic is that, like we saw at times in Iraq, many people are not willing to work to make the change or they did not wish for the change in the first place. By taking matters into our own hands, the United States was making the decision for a change of government in Iraq without allowing the Iraqis to make that decision for themselves. Of course there may be times when it is absolutely necessary that the United States or another country must take matters into their own hands and depose of a dictator or ruler, but it is an extremely touchy matter. There are bound to be unhappy parties involved in the decision.
ReplyDeleteIn order for a democracy to be born, there have to be willing players and this is not always the case. I think that they have to emerge from within. I feel that by "creating" a democracy from the outside, in a way, you would be impeding upon their rights as humans. What right does the United States have to make the decision for the Iraqis that they are now going to have a democracy?
In the end I think this is a question with no exact answer. No matter what happens there are bound to be unhappy parties involved in the process.
I agree that Democracy has to be inspired from the people. It's sort of like a religion, it has to be inspired from within. No one can be rationally argued into a faith. The true conversion comes from them. However, that could be a different topic entirely.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to spreading democracy, President Obama addressed this in his Nobel speech. He said that one of the reasons for America going into other countries was to promote democracy and justice AND not because "we seek to oppose our will, but out of enlightened self-interest". This is the direction our president wants to take us. He is trying to balance promotion of justice and our own self interest. That is the line at which the controversy comes.
In regards to Dr. Metres' comment, I think that it ultimately takes a combination of the two. There are times when the United States government feels that it must intervene to "create" a democracy. However, if that movement isn't supported by the people within that country, it is much more likely to fail. For instance, if the Iraqi people feel that they have just been thrown into a democratic government that they don't necessarily want, then the chance of success is minimal. Even if the United States continued to work in an attempt to solidify that democracy, without support from the nation's people, is there still a point? Thus, I guess I argue that democracy can be "created" by an outside nation, such as the United States, but that does not necessary mean it will flourish unless it comes from within as well.
ReplyDelete