The American people in the US-Led Afghanistan and Iraq War - Essay Example

Full Descriptive Submitted The American People in the US-Led Afghanistan and Iraq War I Introduction The UShas always prided itself to be the vanguard of democracy. In its Constitution it is stated that the purpose of government is to “… form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” (qtd. in Smith 125). More than its military might, the real power of the US lies in its high moral ground in defending civil liberties and the rule of law at home and abroad. With this consistent posturing, the US government gets high support from the American public and the international community, cementing its appearance of invincibility and making its citizens feel secure against any external threat. However, this long-held belief was eroded when Osama Bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda unprecedentedly attacked the symbols of US power in New York City, Washington D.C. and Shanksville, Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001. This shocked the world and inflicted harm against the US far beyond its number of casualties and destroyed properties, as it had created deep fear of insecurity among Americans, exposing the vulnerability of the world’s super power. In reprisal, the Bush administration immediately launched its international war against terror not simply to expunge terrorism but most importantly to pacify and bring back the myth of US invincibility to the American public that for many decades had made them feel secure and superior. Unfortunately, the result had been the opposite. In its war against terror, the US has unwittingly stripped off itself of its real hegemonic motives and exposed its total disregard to civil liberties, inevitably reversing the American public and international support into condemnation. Bush’s full military offensive against terrorism had been a backlash, not only against his administration but against America. II War Justification and Motives The 9/11terrorist attack on the US soil served the Bush administration in two important ways that would later unmask the US government to its own people and to the world. First, it served as warning that the American public is no longer safe in their own land, which created in them deep fear of insecurity to the point of paranoia. This called for a review on US foreign policy sharpening the view that US hegemony might have been creating and fuelling anti-US sentiments giving terrorists reason to attack America – a view that although not new was not given much thought before, much more by the American public. Second, this had become an opportunity to send America to war, as the fragile state of the American public was carefully manipulated to conveniently justify a war that Bush and his cowboys found decisive in insuring the strategic positioning and in imposing the US hegemonic interest in the Middle East. Never before had there been an attack attempted against the US on its own soil that was as bold and sophisticated as the bombing of the World Trade Center and Pentagon. This did not simply shock the world but had created in the American public the deep fear of insecurity, seeing that international terrorism had grown into a potent enemy capable of harming even the most formidable nation in the world. Meaning, nothing is seemingly safe against international terrorism and that America was no longer a safe place to live in. This thought sent a chilling effect on Americans, especially those living conveniently in their homes. Opportunely, too, the Al-Qaeda had been so easily transformed into a new enemy of the world replacing the collapsed communist Soviet Union. Thus the neo-conservatives in the Bush administration had created a convincing myth to push for their long desired war in the Middle East without much opposition. (Shah 6) The magnitude of the casualty and the sophistication of the tactic employed by Al-Qaeda in 9/11 attack had really shaken not only American confidence but had blinded them from seeing that Bush’s preventive war may not be preventive at all, as it had proven in the process to have sow more anti-US than anti-Al Qaeda sentiment among Muslims, giving the terrorist group concrete cause to recruit and justify further attack against America and its allies; that the Bush war on terror was further weakening America’s security, was putting the very foundation of American democracy at risk and was undermining international law and institutions, thereby jeopardizing the moral authority of the US to lead the world (Hinnebusch 18-22; Stiglitz, par. 1 & 8). It has also weakened Americans’ sense of judgment, that the illegal war against Iraq – the nation that had the guts to oppose US hegemony, yet no relations with Bin Laden and had nothing to do with the 9/11terrorist attack – had gathered public support without much opposition. In fact, Bush popularity had soared during that time (Shah 3). On the pretext of the eminent threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) from Saddam Hussien, who was pictured in public mind as an evil dictator, Bush and his brilliant scriptwriters were able to easily convince the public that Iraq was indeed an enemy and a terrorist ally, as it was developing its WMD, which Saddam or Bin Laden could use against the US, thus the need for preventive war. In the sight of millions of Americans who were engulfed with fear of insecurity, this simple fabrication of myth was enough for them to support Bush’s preventive war against Iraq, believing that the US is simply defending and securing itself against terrorism. Too much damage had been done and a colossal amount had been spent in financing the war at the expense of Americans’ taxes before it became finally clear to Americans and international observers that the real motive of the war against Iraq was to ensure the strategic position of the US in the Middle East and to assert its hegemony over the oil market. (Hinnebusch 11-12) III Importance of these Wars to US History To understand the importance to US history its war on terror against Afghanistan and Iraq, it is vital to examine the American interest in the Middle East – the epicenter of the oil market. US war on terror against Afghanistan could be easily understood as the US reprisal against Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, which sanctuary was believed to be in Afghanistan. Such knowledge was not hidden to the US, because way back in the 70’s, Afghan insurgents called mujahideen – the origin of Osama Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda – was funded by the United States to forestall the Soviet Union’s establishment of a communist regime in Afghanistan (Zalman 2). However, recent evidences show that long before the 9/11 horrible incident, the US conquest of Afghanistan had been planned since 1998, seeing it as the only possible route for the desired oil pipeline that would be constructed by CenGas, but would not be possible unless there installed a legitimate government recognized by the Afghan people and the international community (U.S. House of Representatives 7 & 39). On the other hand, the US war on terror against Iraq, Hinnebusch explained could be best understood by looking at the oil crisis confronting the Bush presidency even before the 9/11 US bombing. The US was faced with a stiffening oil crisis that could be fatal to the US economy and to Bush’s presidency. Iraq, having the second largest oil reserves and cheap production cost, was seen as the US’s only way out. Unfortunately, Saddam Hussein, a strong US opponent was still in power. Meaning, not unless Iraq will be transformed into a US-friendly nation-state, US could never make take advantage of Iraq’s oil. This difficulty was further compounded by the weakening of US hegemony over the Middle East due to the breakdown of the Pax-Americana. This means the isolation of Iraq and Iran was losing its hold, giving Iraq and Iran the opportunity to sell oil concessions to US rivals, essentially leaving the US at the losing end. Furthermore, the collapse of the peace process between Israel and Saudi Arabia, while Israel continued to occupy Palestinian territories, had soured Saudi Arabia’s alliance to the US, feeling that the latter did not fulfill its part of the bargain in the 1991 US Gulf War. Finding an alternative to secure its interest, Arabia reconciled with Iran and Iraq. This further threatened US hegemony in the region, because its basis, which was the balance special relationship of the US with Israel and Saudi Arabia, was destabilized. It then became more apparent to the Bush administration that conquering Iraq was its only way to survive its oil crisis and to protect its threatened hegemonic interest in the region. More than this, with the conquest of Iraq, Bush and his cowboys would want to send a chilling message to the world that anybody who would dare threaten America would surely meet the same fate of Iraq. More blatantly it means, the US war against Iraq was meant to bully those who would dare challenge US hegemony over the Middle East. (11-15) Evidently, the US war on terror had brilliantly taken advantage of the international terrorist threat to justify its aggression against Muslim nations, which were unfriendly to the American interest. It is a direct assault to Muslim state’s and their people of their sovereign right to carve their own national development. This would explain why the Bush administration chose to pursue a violent option as against a diplomatic one, even to the point of coercing members of the UN Security Council to legitimize America’s illegal war on terror against Iraq. Added to its economic and political interest in the Middle East, plus the need for Bush to boost his administration’s dwindling popularity due to bad economic policies favoring corporate interests at the expense of the American people (Judiciary Report, par. 32), the US needed to regain the upper hand in handling international matters. This was done by employing an overwhelming military power (Hinnebusch 25). In other words, the US war on terror was an overkill going beyond its pronounced objective. IV The Reversal of American Perception against the US War on Terror While the 9/11 attack had given the Bush administration convenient justification to wage its war on terror, its conduct of the war was found by the American public and the international community contrary to the ideals of US democracy and the international norms, turning the initial favorable public opinion against Bush’s war on terror. In fact, an increasing number (55%) of Americans perceive that the US war on terror had not in any way gained but rather demeaned the world’s respect to US leadership and integrity (Cosgrove-Mather, par. 12). To Schlesinger’s description: “… the global wave of sympathy that engulfed the US after 9/11 has given way to a global wave of hatred of American arrogance and militarism” (qtd. in Hinnebusch 26). The following events could explain the erosion of America’s public support for the war on terror – from a high 64% approval rating in December 2003 down to a low 35% in January 2007 (Sussman, par. 6). One, although majority of Americans saw the need to use military force to depose Saddam Hussein from power, they prefer diplomatic efforts. Besides, they wanted concrete proof of the presence of WMD and evidence of Iraq’s connivance with Bin Laden as US alleged against Iraq, before going to war. (Cosgrove-Mather, par. 1) In other words, although the American public was convinced on the necessity of war on terror against Iraq, it still demanded for a just cause and a go signal from the UN Security Council. Thus the failure of the Coalition to get the UN sanction before going to war raised not only doubts but a condemnation seeing the US preventive war against Iraq illegal (Ramsay 135), especially so, it was declared illegal by the UN Secretary General (Hinnebusch 27). People’s reservation on the war had become more pronounced when the Coalition failed to prove the existence of WMD in Iraq. This had greatly discredited the credibility of the new doctrine of ‘preventive war’. (Hinnebusch 24; Ramsay 135) As Bush’s weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay, himself, stated: Without a credible, good and accurate intelligence report, a policy of preemption can hardly be acceptable. Two, contrary to the assurance that America will not suffer the burden of financing the war, in reality it had cost the US treasury a massive amount, reaching to date, $2.5 trillion. Such colossal amount for a war, which was meant to secure American interest did not only turn out to be more expensive than expected but had greatly damaged the US economy even compromising it in the future. (Bilmes & Stiglitz, par. 1) Aside from this, the human cost had been great reaching 3,000 US troops killed in 2006 and 17,000 in sum total including those injured (Hinnebusch 24), that a significant number of Americans (4:10) perceived this war to be almost comparable to the infamous Vietnam War in the 60s (The Washington Post 1). On the other hand, the harm this violent war brought on the people of Iraq and Afghanistan had reached 137,000 civilian deaths, 1.8 million refugees and 1.7 million internally displaced people (Stiglitz, par. 10). Three, the abusive conduct of US troops in the war, showing total disregard for the Afghan and Iraqi people’s religion and tradition, had only helped fuel the resistance and had only strengthened the terrorists in their number and determination. It was not surprising then to learn that the war on terror was not winning. (Hinnebusch 18-19) This failure had caused Americans to rethink to the point of regret that they had supported such war. This conduct of US troops had also weakened America’s soft power, that international observers became vigilant and more critical of US actions. Four, not only were the rights of Afghans and Iraqis violated in the campaign against terrorism, but even those living in the US. Ironically, as US troops vowed to secure American democracy at home by fighting the US war on terror abroad, civil liberties at home were eroded. The most chilling was the government’s claim that anyone, once suspected of terrorism, even a US citizen for that matter, could be incarcerated indefinitely even without the due process of law. (Hinnebusch 24) In effect, the war on terror had been brought home and had been jeopardizing American democracy. V Conclusion The US-led broad campaign against terrorism had essentially exposed American vulnerability and had eroded its perceived invincibility. Though it may be true that Bin Laden – the leader of the most wanted terrorist group – had been killed, this did not warrant the elimination of terrorism. As what had been demonstrated in the war on terrorism, the abusive conduct of US troops did not weaken but strengthen the enemy. In the same way, the unquenchable desire of the US to preserve and expand its hegemony over the Middle East compels it to violate its own democratic principles, giving the enemy the reason to gain more followers and rebuild again. Thus the US-led war on terror, with all its human and financial cost, would be remembered as the folly of America’s arrogance and militarism to impose its hegemonic interest. Works Cited Bilmes, Linda J. and Stiglitz, Joseph E. “America’s Costly War Machine.” Los Angeles Times. 18 September 2011. 15 December 2011 . Cosgrove-Mather, Bootie. “Poll: Talk First; Fight Later.” CBS News Opinion.23 january 2003. cbsnew.com. 12 December 2011 . Hinnebusch, Raymond. “The American Invasion of Iraq: Causes and Consequences.” Perceptions. Spring. 2007: 9-27. Judiciary Report. How George Bush Destroyed the U.S. Economy… and the Congress that Let Him. 27 September 2007. 15 December 2011 . Ramsay, Allan. “Foreign Policy and Conspiracy.” Contemporary Review. September. 2003: 135+ Shah, Anup. “War on Terror.” Global Issues. 24 September 2011. globalissues.org. 12 December 2011 . Smith, Michael A. Naked America. US: Michael A. Smith, 2008. Stiglitz, Joseph E. “The Price of 9/11.” Economist View. 01 September 2011. Project Syndicate. 12 December 2011 . Sussman, Dalia. “Poll Shows View on Iraq War Is Most Negative Since Start.” The New York Times. 25 May 2007. nytimes.com. 12 December 2011 . U.S. House of Representatives. Committee on International Relations. Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. Hearing on U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics. Washintyon, DC: 48-119 CC, 12 February 1998. 15 December 2011 . The Washington Post. “Poll Finds Dimmer View of Iraq War.” 07 June 2005. 14 December 2011 . Zalman, Amy. War in Afghanistan – the History behind the U.S. War in Afghanistan. About.com. 14 December 2011 . Read More