Critical Analysis of The Consequences of the War on Terror

The announcement of the war on terror drove substantial change, which was explicitly unsuccessful for various reasons. Mainly as this war had led to the humiliation of those falsely accused, as well as causing great fear among the American public, making it a possible cause towards the increase of xenophobia and racism globally, more so in America. Furthermore, the campaign had single-handedly massacred thousands of innocent civilians in the name of ‘democracy’, consequently contributing to more harm rather than good.

Essentially, it could be argued that the war had failed in regards to how Bush presented the campaign. Since 9/11, some would suggest that the terrorist threat had been exaggerated. (Haas and Hird, 2009). Although 19 men were initially involved, the campaign that Bush introduced targeted countries, rather than individuals, therefore, naming the campaign a ‘war on terror’ had implied that the perpetrators were state actors. Regardless, it would be inaccurate to describe it as such. Although the war in Afghanistan had been somewhat justified in the context of the war on terror, on the grounds of the Taliban regime endorsing Al-Qaeda, the general campaign had been exaggerated, therefore triggering fear into American citizens, thus, the majority would irrationally support the hostile foreign policies introduced under the Bush doctrine (Hetherington and Suhay, 2011), despite the fact that the wars were more or less related to national interest rather than democratic principles. This fear was common among the American public, and it may have been a reason as to why there was a surge in Islamophobic attacks, particularly after the war on terror had been announced, as well as the surge in anti-Muslim sentiment in the media (Ghazali, 2008). This is a potential cause for the increase in hate crime, with over 400 Islamaphobic hate crimes in the US, just weeks after 9/11 (Byers and Jones, 2007).

As previously discussed that the presentation of the campaign led to more consequences, another failure of the war on terror that will be discussed is the human rights abuses that took place, which was arguably driven by the exaggeration of the campaign. As there were over 660 suspects arrested (National Security Division of Terrorist Related Convictions, 2016), it is clear that innocent citizens would have been inevitably implicated. Despite this, it could also be argued that the increase in arrests led to large scale attacks being prevented. As indicated in the case of Lyman Farris, who was arrested for giving away sensitive information away to Al-Qaeda (Justice.gov, 2019). Therefore due to the increased security precautions, another potential terrorist attack was prevented.

Yet, the increase in arrests does not mean that all suspects are guilty. The majority were detained without constitutional protection and a fair trial (Human Rights Watch, 2017). Furthermore, extreme human rights abuses took place, as shown through the methods which were used, such as waterboarding, sleep deprivation and further extreme tortures, which were endorsed by the US government. This was proven when all detainees of the prison claimed that some torture took place, over several years. Five detainees who were interviewed also claimed that they lost consciousness during interrogation methods exposing the inhumane conditions of the prison. In protest to the abuse, detainees also participated in a hunger strike to speak out against the conditions that they were kept in, however, there was no change (Lacopino and Xenakis, 2011). These protests underpins the extreme nature of the prison, therefore, the war on terror was a failure, as it strayed away from the international laws and its very own constitution, as well as its own standards of dealing with such issues, with the very barbaric methods which they vowed to destroy, showing the hypocritical nature of the US. Additionally, 7 out of the 779 men who were taken to the prison were actually convicted. 5 of these men only pleaded guilty due to being manipulated, believing that they may get an early release if they confess (Amnesty.org.uk, 2018). Of course, it may be the case that they were tricked into a false confession. As a result, citizens' rights have been violated, with no regard to the American law and constitution being applied, as it is clear when the US government referred to the Guantanamo Bay detainees as “unlawful combatants.” therefore implying that the geneva conventions and human rights laws do not apply to these detainees (Chlopak, 2011).

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

Of course, due to the constant targets, arrests and human rights abuses as discussed previously, as well as the foreign wars, there was a rise in Anti-Americanism, particularly in Iraq (Haynes, 2005). Firstly, the belief that America respects the sovereignty of other states had disintegrated when the US invaded Iraq in 2003, introducing the law to legalise torture against Iraqi citizens. As well as affecting Iraq, it had also affected the US in the manner that they had gained a poor reputation internationally, having broken the Geneva conventions of 1907 and 1949 which was in no way justified. It was brought to the attention of many in power, particularly to Bush, that there was no evidence that Iraq was involved in the surge of terrorist campaigns, thus they should not have been held accountable for 9/11, especially since Al-Qaeda had already been named as responsible. This is apparent in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) letter, that the US government produced containing why they chose to invade Iraq, the word ‘terrorism’ was not mentioned. Instead, it was stated that Iraq breached a disarmament deal. Therefore meaning that they had believed that Saddam Hussein, the former Iraqi president, was holding weapons of mass destruction, which the US military did not find (Roberts, 2005). Having established that the Iraq war was not justified at least to the extent that the Afghanistan war was, yet the US remained to paint themselves as incorruptible, particularly the Neo-Conservatives, who not only agreed with the invasion of Iraq but found it commendable and ‘an act of liberation’ (McWIlliams and Piatrowski, 2009). However, indeed this was clearly not true, the only element of freedom that the US truly brought to the Iraqi citizens was “freedom of rape, freedom of nudity and the freedom of humiliation.” (Danner, 2004, cited in McWilliams and Piatrowski, 2009).

However, despite the failure in the Iraq war, it could be argued that there was some form of success in the Afghanistan war, as it is arguably a justifiable war, unlike the invasion of Iraq (Bleiker, 2003). Furthermore, a successful democratic election took place in the year of 2004. This shows that elements of democracy spread to Afghanistan due to the war, ensuring that some parts of the Taliban regime collapsed under Bush. These events which took place show that the war on terror had arguably some elements of success. (Roberts, 2005).

Yet, despite the relative success in the Afghanistan war, both wars could still be considered as an act of ‘recolonisation’, As Robert Baer states, “...They see it as neo-colonialism.” (Cited in Rai, 2006). This is particularly clear in Iraq, when the US set a permanent military base, demonstrating their power on Iraqi soil as well as claiming control over the economy of Iraq. This shows that the war on terror was not only military based in terms of ‘protecting the American citizens’, but for economic gains, and arguably to assert power politics in the international arena, with actions mirroring colonisation. (McWIlliams and Piatrowski, 2009). Therefore making the war on terror a failure in terms of morality, proving their colonising nature. Moreover demonstrating that the international arena is truly immoral when it comes to personal gain for the country, particularly in terms of influence, as argued generally by realists. (Donnelly, 2000). The US also has an anarchical nature, where they seem to act in an authoritative manner. Therefore, these foreign wars and human rights abuses prove the fact that the US only seems to be acting in their own national interest, with no regard to the welfare of other states, yet put on a facade and become the ‘saviour’ when different states are committing the same acts, suggesting that America failed in the campaign in terms of morality.

Overall, the evidence suggests that the war on terror was a failure, particularly in terms of the lives that were taken in the name of protecting America’s national interest, without regarding other states and their welfare. It was also a failure in terms of morality, with the constant need to demonstrate power politics internationally, without following their own constitutional principles. The consequences of the war on terror are still taking place, and it is deceptive to argue that the war on terror had improved some aspects of the world, as Afghanistan and Iraq are still paying the price for the war to this day, as well as the ex-detainees of Guantanamo Bay. Moreover, it is clear that despite efforts, the act of terrorism was not reduced, and it is a remaining threat. Therefore it is questionable whether the war on terror was truly worth the damage which was done in some parts of the world.