America and the Global War on Terrorism: Explaining the Past and Determining the Future

Abstract

This chapter interrogates America’s campaign in the fight against global terrorism. It examines why despite America’s efforts to combat terrorism, some recalcitrant regimes and fundamental religious extremists have founded this campaign to the extent that it resulted to September 11 attacks on American states. It uses historical methodology to examine the impact of these attacks on America’s past with a possibility of determining whether or not America would continue with the campaign. It further looks at the American peoples’ mood, their reactions and expectations from the National government and in extension, the international community. It provides answers to the kinds of actions taken to stymie further terrorism as manifested in Bush’s unilateral decision to take the war on global terrorism to Osama bin Laden and countries that supported him and his al Qaeda terrorist group.

1. Introduction

The complex and conflicting forces of state actors are what define the international strategic landscape of the twenty-first century. As each nation-state pursues a national interest that ensures the security of lives and property of its residents in the international community, these factors nearly made it difficult for inter-state contacts to be conducted. As a result, conflicts between states, which are brought on by ethnic, religious, and nationalistic differences and have become commonplace, as well as the nature and complexity of the international system concerning International terrorism, drug cartels, and threats from information-age technologies, according to Sarkesian et al. [1], are to blame for the unrest and make efforts to achieve world peace nearly impossible. In the years following September 11, 2001, the US prioritized the promotion of international security, peace, and order. According to Sarkisian et al. [1], there had previously been a general sense of optimism toward peace, but that optimism had been destroyed on September 11, 2001, by the terrorist attacks on the United States and the subsequent long fight against terrorism.

With the idea of a new concept of war being blended with globalization, economic expansion, homeland security, and a desire to uphold US principles peacefully, the United States’ nuclear strategic doctrine has been directed to combat terrorism in this framework. Therefore, rather than the immediate prospect of a large military conflict, the unexpected, unclear, and confused nature of the international arena has caused the US national security policies and priorities to become complex, frequently ambiguous, and even inconsistent after September 11.

To further the pursuit of and strengthen global peace, the US national security strategy after 9/11 has been focused on forging and maintaining an alliance of cooperation among the major countries of the globe. Given that all of the major powers are under threat from terrorism with weapons of mass destruction as well as from threats to the environment and public health, the concert is now feasible. Evera [2] believes that since maintaining this global peace is in everyone’s best interest, all major states should work together to combat these challenges. Since everyone is at risk, no one will be tempted to argue that those issues just affect you, and not us, thus we will not offer assistance.

As a result, US national security policy since the years that proceeded September 11 has been directed toward combating global terrorism and pursuing global leadership by retaining the superiority of US armed forces. The US National Security Strategy of 2002 highlighted that the battle of the 20th century had left the world with just one viable paradigm for achieving national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise. The militarization of US foreign policy falls under this category, and resources are being gathered to fight any force that poses a danger to the country’s interests. Meanwhile, Lodgaard [3], in his post 9/11 US stance emphasizes that the US strength as a nation-state is continued to be challenged by those who employ the strategy of the weak using international fora, judicial processes, and terrorism. By this, the US is committed to design new strategic policy model for combating all threats to global security. This shall form a hegemonic rule based on two standards- one for the hegemon and one for the subjects as the rule of law is based on two standards for all parties. Since the 9/11 terrorist attack, the United States withdrew from some international agreements and opted out of others, maximizing its flexibility of action. This was to really prepare the US in its resolve to fight terrorism all over the globe.

The US global war on terrorism was intensified after the 9/11 Osama bin Laden’s attacks by al-Qaida terrorist group. The consequence of the attacks led to the adoption of new foreign policy posture called the ‘Bush Doctrine’ which implies that the US’s post-9/11 foreign policy objectives place a strong emphasis on the country’s promotion of freedom and liberty as instruments for ending global terrorism [4]. And to achieve this means every nation-state must join. By this, America made no distinction between the terrorists and countries that aid them. As a strategic plan to ending terrorism America founded the Department of National Homeland Security and built ‘coalition of the willing’ in its fight against the culprits of 9/11.

With the creation of Department of National Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, the governor of Pennsylvania, was chosen as the first director of the White House’s Office of Homeland Security 11 days after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The office was given the responsibility of managing and coordinating a comprehensive national strategy to protect the nation from terrorism and respond to any upcoming assaults. In collaboration with the counterintelligence and security centre, the office’s role is to effectively guide and support the counterintelligence and security efforts of the American Intelligence Community. In other words, entities in the public and private sectors of the United States could be targeted by foreign enemies for intelligence gathering or an attack. For this reason, President Bush Jr. started the U.S. national security plan to defend the country from additional assaults. He also stated that the country must now decide between the route of confidence and the path of fear. Contending that those who believe our challenges to be too enormous and fail to appreciate our chances are drawn to the path of fear (isolationism and protectionism, retreat and retrenchment). Hence, he opines that the issues have only become worse and the missed chances have made future generations less secure every time American leaders have chosen this course, history teaches [5].

In the light of this, the administration decided to follow the route of confidence, favoring leadership over isolationism and free and open markets over protectionism. Choosing to address problems when they arise rather than abandoning them for future generations is another option. As a result, Bush further insists that we should fight our adversaries abroad rather than wait for them to invade our nation. This means that America must be proactive rather than reactive to concerns that threaten American sovereignty. He said that instead of passively accepting the way things are, we should try to change the world for the better [5].

Against this background, many observers argue that America’s response to the 9/11 terrorist assault was in keeping with the great heritage of American foreign policy in opposition to this premise. Since the American approach was idealistic about its national interest, yet practical about the means to attain them, we can also say that it was similar to the policies of Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan. Thus, to continue down this road, America increased its military power to counter dangers and challenges before they could harm the American people and their shared interests. Therefore, it is in the best interests of Americans to preserve an unmatched military-a strength that is not based solely on the use of physical force but also on a thriving economy and democracy.

Consequently, the American national security strategy following 9/11 is supported by two pillars: The first pillar works to increase wealth through free and fair trade and sensible development policies while promoting freedom, justice, and human dignity. The second pillar of the strategy focuses on addressing contemporary challenges by guiding a growing community of democracies in the development of successful multinational initiatives to address pandemic diseases, the proliferation of WMDs, terrorism, human trafficking, and natural disasters that threaten humanity. To that end, the national security strategy of the administration openly pledge to “fight terrorists and tyrants” and “encourage free and open societies in every continent,” and it successfully forge a global coalition to carry out the war on terrorism so as to guarantee open democracies.

2. US policy on terrorism

US pursuit of global peace and security has assumed the main focus of its foreign policy objective. However, foreign policy objectives occasioned by the polarity of national interest, the US hegemonic power and the effects of World War I and II, have consequently made the conduct of international relations almost difficult and has largely pitted one state against the other to the extent that global security threat in international system is encouraged. In other words, the US efforts to entrench peace through liberal democracy have been foundered by the emergence of violent extremism and terrorism hence, US policy on global terrorism has moved away from deterrence to aggressive nuclear attacks that manifested in the post 9/11 Bush’s Doctrine [4].

The September 11 US attacks revealed that global terrorism has assumed a new dimension. Its attendant consequences lie on the US effort to stymie further attacks and combat global terrorism. Since that devastating attack, the US has pursued a comprehensive foreign policy that addresses the complex challenge posed by global terrorism. In other words, the challenges led to the key components of US policy on war against terrorism. These include:

2.1 Military response and preventive strike

The US policy on global terrorism relates to its military measures toward preventing and responding to terrorist threats before they are executed. The post 9/11 US nuclear policy suggests a paradigm shift from the Cold War nuclear deterrence to preventive strike that emphasizes proactive action (s) against a perceived threat or enemy. The manifestation of the policy abound on the US led invasions in Iraq in 2003 and Afghanistan in 2001 and the deployment of military forces dislodged and dismantled al Qaeda terrorist networks by disrupting their operations and eliminating their leaders. Accordingly, Bush [6] maintains that our military power will be directed to remove safe havens from terrorists and undermine their capacity to carry out attacks.

Indeed, the United States in achieving this, engaged in the training and equipping partner nations to build counterterrorism capabilities. For example, counterterrorism forum and bilateral military partnerships, sharing expertise in intelligence, surveillance, and special operations to enhance the capacity of allied nations were all measures adopted by the US to combat terrorism (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

US counterterrorism measures and the deadliest terrorist groups.

2.2 Socio-economic initiatives

Socio-economic programmes are another measures taking by the United States to combat global terrorism in international system. To address the root causes of terrorism, US policy on global terrorism has drifted from nuclear deterrence to preventive doctrine which requires that America must take actions that would prevent its attacks before they are executed. The policy however perceived as the US 21st century policy on global terrorism becomes a vital foreign policy objective. By this, the US policy incorporates the socio-economic initiative to counter religious radicalism and extremism. As part of the measures to combat global terrorism, United States of America seeks to institutionalize the principle of democracy which will promote good governance, enhance economic development, and permit inclusive societies with the believe that it will create conditions that would reduce the appeal of terrorist ideologies by providing alternatives for vulnerable populations. By this, efforts such as the Global Counterterrorism Forum’s Countering Violent Extremism Initiatives and USAID’s development programme in vulnerable regions were all adopted to provide education, economic opportunities, and social services to at-risk communities. Thus, the initiatives target to address the underlying problems that terrorists often exploit and foster resilience against radicalization. Byman and Moller [7] assert that to combat terrorism, the George W. Bush and Obama administrations made significant efforts to crack down on finance for terrorism and support for the jihadist movement in general in Saudi Arabia and other affluent Gulf States.

Apart from the opportunities provided by the US to address economic hardship of the displaced persons, the diagram below shows that over 80 million people globally have been displaced forcefully. This makes these displaced persons susceptible to terrorism. What this implies is that, those displaced persons have the chances of exploiting the opportunity provided by terrorism and violent extremism to perpetuate global insecurity as this could negatively affect global economic cooperation, trade and investment (Figures 2 and 3).

Figure 2.

Retrogression in global economic violence.

Figure 3.

Terrorism and global security dimensions.

2.3 Multilateral cooperation

Despite the US active engagement in multilateral forums and partnerships, US military partnership with NATO members has actually contributed to enhancing global counterterrorism efforts. The US supports and participates in international organizations such as NATO and the G7, to provide platforms for coordination, cooperation and the development of common strategies to combat terrorism. For example, in recent times, the United Nations missions have been the frequent target of terrorist attacks in such countries as Mali, however non-UN operations have fought against violent extremist groups in Afghanistan and Somalia. Given the prospect of UN peacekeeping operations in countries like Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Yemen which serve as the hotbeds for terrorism and violent extremism, multilateral cooperation has helped to halt global terrorism. Smit [8] maintains that the spread of terrorism and violent extremism in parts of Africa and the scope of peace operations such as the Global Collation against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), the Multinational Joint Task Force (MNJTF) against Boko Haram and the Joint Force of the Group of Five Sahel (JF-G5S) are some of the common strategies for combating terrorism.

The effectiveness of multilateral cooperation manifested in the ‘international coalition’ adopted by US and its allies during the post 9/11 terrorist attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq. The collaboration in doubt orchestrated the aggressive search for Osama bin Laden and hastened the removal of Saddam Hussein by America coalition forces.

2.4 Intelligence and information gathering

Information and intelligence were other measures that played a pivotal role in the US fight for global war on terror. In fact, the US policy emphasized the collection, analysis and sharing of intelligence among domestic and international partners. The intelligence community comprised of agencies such as the CIA, FBI and NSA that collaborated with the foreign counterparts to identify and disrupt terrorist networks during and after the September 11 attacks. The agencies were responsible in tracking their financiers to prevent potential attacks. Indeed, the USA Patriot Act though, enacted to response to the 9/11 attacks, emphasizes much in information sharing. To that extent, the Act granted the US law enforcement agencies an expanded power to gather intelligence, monitor communications and share information on terrorism. In this context, the US prioritizes information gathering and maintains that intelligence sharing should include covert operations all sectors of the world and to keep with the information management in other countries so as to conduct a full-scale assault on the terrorist network’s financial infrastructure [9].

2.5 Diplomatic engagement

The US policy on global terrorism recognizes the importance of diplomatic engagement in addressing the underlying causes of terrorism and fostering international cooperation. Terrorism constitutes a global security threat and the US noting its dire consequences, actively engaged with other nations worldwide to promote counterterrorism cooperation by enhancing intelligence-sharing and strengthening the legal frameworks that would combat terrorist financing and recruitment.

Though during the September 11, the US strategically employed diplomatic pressure that isolated and sanctioned states that sponsor terrorism. In doing that, the US made no distinction between terrorists and countries that aid and provides havens for terrorism. According to Bush [6], our common enemies are not only the terrorists themselves; they include those countries that provide safe havens for them… Our enemies should choose the best path to follow-the path for unity or disunity. By leveraging its diplomatic influence, the US seeks to compel nations to cease supports for terrorist organization and to dismantle their infrastructure. For instance, the imposition of economic sanctions in Iran and North Korea reflected the US commitment to preventing state-sponsored terrorism.

3. The US nuclear deterrence policy

US nuclear deterrence policy refers to the strategic approach adopted by the United States to prevent potential adversaries from launching nuclear attacks against the American States. Its main components include the US nuclear triad, second-strike capability, flexible Responses and non-proliferation and arms control. Lodgaard [3] stresses that the new US deterrence replaces the pre-emptive doctrine of nuclear strategic policy. The goal of deterrence throughout the nuclear era was to prevent the use of nuclear delivery systems, including artillery systems, land-based aircraft, and air, sea, and land-based missiles with a variety of ranges. Therefore, the US nuclear triad consists of three delivery systems-including land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and strategic bombers. This triad allows the US to retaliate with devastating force from multiple platforms by reducing the likelihood of a successful attack on nuclear forces.

Secondly, the second-strike capability allows the US to respond to a nuclear attack even after suffering a nuclear strike. This capability is crucial for deterrence, as it reassures potential adversaries that an attack on US forces would result in severe consequences. The third approach borders on the flexible responses that emphasize the need to tailor US response to a potential nuclear aggression, ranging from a proportional retaliation to a massive and overwhelming response. Importantly, the flexible response provides the US with options to calibrate its response based on the severity of the threats.

Finally, non-proliferation and arms control seek to actively prevent the spread of nuclear weapons by limiting the number of nuclear-armed states and reducing existing arsenals to further reduce the risk of nuclear conflict in the world.

4. Explaining the past and determining the future of US global war on terrorism

The uncertainty that characterizes the exact future of the United States’ approach to global terrorism is difficult to predicate. This is because it is likely that the US will continue to actively fight terrorism through myriad of approaches because of its experiences on terrorism. The approach ranges from the military operations, intelligence gathering, international cooperation and targeted counterterrorism efforts.

By this, the United States has recently had several experiences with terrorism throughout its history. Notably among them was the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. During that time, a truck bomb which was detonated in the underground parking garage of the North Tower of World Trade Center in New York City had killed six people and injured over thousands people. The attack was perceived to be the first major terror attack against the US. In 2001, there were another deadly terrorist attacks that were carried out by a group of al Qaeda terrorists. The attacks were well coordinated and targeted at World Trade Center and Pentagon with nearly 3000 people killed. Carroll [10] opines that a total of 341 New York City Fire Department fire fighters, paramedics and civilian support staff that died from the post-9/11 illnesses were immortalized during the FDNY anniversary. Again, there was another historic terrorist experienced by Americans in Oklahoma City bombing of 1995. The attack was carried by a domestic terrorist named Timothy McVeigh who detonated a truck bomb outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. It killed almost 168 people with hundreds injured. Lewis [11] maintains that the Oklahoma City bombing allegedly heightened the public’s awareness of and insecurity about domestic terrorism. Though, the underlying presumption suggested that if America could be stroke by terrorism, then there is no place and no one could be safe. In other words, the attack was considered as the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in US history.

More so, in 2013, two brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev detonated two pressure cooker bombs that killed 3 persons and injured almost 260 people with the finish line of the Boston Marathon. Their motive was believed to have been influenced by radical Islamic beliefs and giving the above experiences, the US has engaged in global war on terror since the 9/11 attacks in 2001 and has pursued an aggressive counterterrorism policy ever since. Over the years, US nuclear defense focus and strategies have evolved, with a shift toward more on precise and targeted operations, with an increased reliance on international partnerships and intelligence sharing.

Undoubtedly, the US future approach to global terrorism is influenced and determined by changes in geopolitical dynamics, advancements in technology and evolving nuclear threats to force US government’s priorities and policies to change with a new administration. The spate of terrorism worldwide is alarming with every nation-state seeking to protect its sovereignty and national interest. So for US to combat terrorism, there must be effective communication strategies to deal with the ideologies and tactics of terrorists. Special attention should be giving to autocratic countries with radical regimes in the Middle East. This is because, countries like Afghanistan, Syria and Pakistan have dominated and ranked higher in global terrorist index. Below is most frequent terrorist organizations, countries occurred and the death tolls (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Terrorist incidences, countries and casualties per cities.

5. Conclusion

The fight against global terrorism has been the defining issue for the United States in recent decades. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the US embarked on a mission to eradicate terrorism, its networks and prevent future acts of violence. Since then, the US has taken a multifaceted approach to combat terrorism. These approaches involve military interventions, diplomatic engagement, socio-economic initiatives, intelligence cooperation and international collaboration including non-proliferation and arms control.

In fact, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 marked the beginning of military engagement in the US effort’s effort on global terrorism especially in Asian regions, with a define objective to dismantle al-Qaeda and remove Taliban from power. In the preceding year, the expansion of these efforts was experienced in Iraq and Syria. By this, the US sought to disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations including the ISIS. Importantly, the US achieved more significant successes fighting against global terrorism. The successes included weakening the al Qaeda terrorist group with its leadership decimated, killing of Osama bin Laden (the master minder of 9/11 terrorism) in the US with overt degrading of ISIS that was once controlling the vast territories in Middle East.

Again, apart from the said successes, there were other challenges that faced US on its global fighting against terrorism. The anti-America writers emphasize that the US military intervention resulted in unintended consequences including civilian casualties, destabilization of the region and the emergence of new extremist groups. Secondly, the US government has quickly faced scrutiny over the use of such controversial methods such as drone strikes, and the detention and interrogation of suspects. Against this backdrop, the US accepting to combat global terrorism should to:

1. prioritize diplomat efforts in order to address the root causes of terrorism. This would include working with international partners to tackle issues such as poverty, political instability and religious extremism that can contribute to the growth of terrorist ideologies. Strengthening international cooperation and intelligence sharing are another key components of US path to combating terrorism.

2. there should be efforts made by the US to counter the narratives and appeal of terrorist groups using effective communication strategies that would expose the true nature of terrorism and promote alternative narratives for peace, tolerance and inclusivity.

3. the US should re-evaluate its military engagements with a view to focusing on sustainable solutions. This will contribute to addressing global security threats, rather than relying on military force, a comprehensive approach that cut across economic development, institution building and support for local governments so as to ensure long-term stability in conflict-affected regions is attained.