Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 17

Name: Mauro Mason de Campos Adorno

Student number :14971291

Subject code and subject title: Master of International Policy Studies POLITICS 51SPW
Security In A Borderless World.

Essay title: America’s War on Terror

Tutor’s name: Joseph Camilleri

I certify that the attached material is my original work. No other person’s work has been
used without due acknowledgement in the text, or in attached form. Except where
reference is made in text, or elsewhere if relevant, this material has not been presented
elsewhere or extracted, in whole or in part, from a document presented by me for another
qualification subject at this or another institution. I understand that the work submitted
may be reproduced and/or communicated for the purpose of detecting plagiarism. I have
read the plagiarism provision contained in Politics Program: “Program Rules ands
Essay Writing Guide 2005”.

Mauro Mason de Campos Adorno


America’s War on Terror

After the war in Iraq and Afghanistan the US still have not showed signs that the war is
close to an end, as a matter of fact the bombings in London last month only proved that
the war still is far from ending. As time passes by more Americans are deployed to Iraq
and Afghanistan and more of them have died during the occupation period, after the war,
than during the war itself. In this scenario three questions are raised in this essay. What
are the objectives of the US on the War on Terror? To what extent is the US achieving
these objectives? And who is winning the War on Terror, terrorist or the US and its
allies?

American Power and the International System

The USA is the most powerful country in the international system today. The USA was a
winning part of the two World Wars and with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the
end of the Cold War the USA became the only superpower in a unipolar global order.
With the end of the East West conflict the marked the post WW II America started to
play security role in the world rather the antagonistic part to the communism that it
played during the Cold War.

After the Cold War the world faced the effects of globalisation and the spread of
American liberal and capitalist ideals. A worldwide process of economic globalisation,
democratisation, multilateral cooperation1 and interdependence among nations marked
the new global order in the 1990’s. The focus of American foreign policy was then, that
through the improvement of other nations social and economic conditions would provide
mutual benefits in the relations among countries and therefore thus helping to ensure
America’s status quo in the global order. The USA started to play a more interventionist

1
HOOK, Steven W. U.S. Foreign Policy. The Paradox of the World Power. CQ Press.
Washington. 2005. pp. 50-51.
role in the international scenario with the rhetoric of defending democratic principles and
civil rights around the world as a contributor in the UN peacekeeping forces and NATO
operations. The 1990’s were a stage for several of these interventions in foreign conflicts
such as the first Gulf War, Somalia, Haiti, the conflict in the Balkans and East Timor2.

The Clinton’s national-security policy of engagement and enlargement3 exemplifies this


new position undertaken by the USA in the international arena, in which the goals were
to enhance the America’s national security by expanding military representation abroad,
to strength America’s economic revitalization and promote democracy abroad. There was
no question at the time about America’s hard power capabilities as far as concern military
mighty. And as far as soft power is concerned the range of American influences in the
world was already in the 1990’s something that could be compared to an Empire4. As a
matter of fact Cox argues that the idea of an American Empire was not new, it was first
employed by the Founding Fathers. He also argues that concept helped to build the ideals
of an American superiority, where America would be a catalyst for democratic reforms
and improving living standards beyond it shores5. The1990’s and were a period when the
USA experienced global expansion of military mighty, economic, cultural and political
influences, and a shift to a more unilateral foreign policy6.

Until September 11 2001 there was no apparent threat to American status quo in the
international scenario. But the terrorist attacks had shaken America’s stability more than

2
Ibidi1. p. 52; EASTERN CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY. US Military
Interventions. United States Wars and Major Military Interventions, 1898-2000.
http://www.easternct.edu/personal/faculty/pocock/milact.htm. 07/08/05.
3
Ibid1; WHITE HOUSE, The. A National Security Strategy of Engagement and
Enlargement. February 1996.
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/national/1996stra.htm. 07/08/05.
4
IKENBERRY, G. John. Liberal Hegemony or Empire? American Power in the Age of
Unipolarity. p.86.; MANN, Michael. The First Failed Empire of the Twenty-First
Century. p. 53. In: American Power In the 21ST Century. Edited by David Held &
Mathias Koenig-Archibugi. Polity Press, 2004.
5
COX, Michael. The Bush Doctrine and Lessons of History. In: American Power In the
21ST Century. Edited by David Held & Mathias Koenig-Archibugi. Polity Press, 2004.
pp32-41.
6
Ibidi1.p 55.
that; it propelled a response that only reinforces the unilateral character of USA foreign
policy. The war on terror became a quest for world security, elimination of possible
threats against America and its principles of freedom, democracy, human rights, in other
words maintenance of the ‘American Way of Life’. A direct offensive attack against the
terrorist and its network was chosen as the best course of action to defend and preserve
America’s status quo.

Status quo and the War on Terror

The War on Terror was declared, a president Bush statement in November 2001, “…we
will not rest until terrorist groups of global reach have been found, have been stopped,
and have been defeated...”7 illustrates the Bush administration’s intentions towards the
war. The US objectives on the War on Terror were clear and straightforward as president
Bush said and as the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism reaffirms it in 2003.

The National Strategy for Combating Terrorism outlines the nature of terrorist threat
nowadays, how the terrorist networks operate and how the terrorists make use of new
technology and weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The document also points out the
intentions of the strategy implemented and its proactive character on fighting terrorism
“…the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act.”8 Finally
document presents the goals and objectives of the War on Terror, with focus on the 4D
strategy (Defeat, Deny, Diminish and Defend) and emphasizes the direct and indirect use
of any resource at hand to defeat terrorism.

The US administration’s objectives in the War on Terror as expressed through the


National Strategy for Combating Terrorism are, among others, to defend US citizens and
interests at home and abroad; to find and defeat terrorist groups and theirs organization
around the world. In order to accomplish these objectives the strategy aims to destroy

7
BUSH, George W. in: US WHITE HOUSE. National Strategy for Combating
Terrorism, Feb 2003, pp. 1-30. p. 1.
8
Ibidi7. p.11.
terrorist capabilities, such as, financial assets, support and sponsorship from rogue
nations9 that function as safe places or heavens for terrorists, in other words to eliminate
the financial sources of terrorist groups. These rogue nations are also sought as the
suppliers of WMD, training facilities and technological support. In order halt countries
that cooperate with terrorists organization the US administration seeks to establish and
maintain international standards of accountability towards nations that sponsor in one
way or another terrorism. To set these accountability standards the US relied on
international cooperation from its allies and called upon counter terrorism conventions
and protocols such as UNSCR 137310.

Notwithstanding the expressed goals and objectives stated by the Bush Administration
other objectives can be read ‘between the lines’ of America’s War on terror. Not so
obvious, on the everyday media, these objectives go from a range of economic, cultural
and ideological interests to expansion of American hard and soft power in the
international system to the maintenance of American status quo in the global order, to
interest on Middle East oil supplies.

The maintenance of America’s status quo in the international system, as the only
superpower, is one of the main objectives of US on the War on Terror. The terrorist
attacks on 9/11 proved that even America, the most powerful country in the world, is
vulnerable on domestic soil and it has no longer the invulnerability sense from before the
attacks11. The War on Terror is a path to the reaffirmation of America’s soft and hard
power around the world. Although as far as hard power is concerned there is no much
need of reaffirmation the US military capabilities, which are by far greater than any other

9
Ibidi.7.
10
United Nation Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001). September 2001.
http://www1.oecd.org/fatf/pdf/SRES1373_en.pdf. 10/08/05.
11
CAMILLERI, J.A. Terrorism, the War on Terror and the Globalisation of Insecurity.
Arena Journal, no. 19, 2002, pp. 7-20. p.8-9;
IKENBERRY, G. John. Liberal Hegemony or Empire? American Power in the Age of
Unipolarity. In: American Power In the 21ST Century. Edited by David Held & Mathias
Koenig-Archibugi. Polity Press, 2004. p. 85.
country’s in the world. The US military spending represents 47% of the world total12 and
can reach figures over 500 billion dollars of its national budget13. There are American
military bases present all around the world14 with some 146,000 US troops serving on
Iraq and other countries only on the War on Terror15. Ikenberry argues that the post-Cold
War saw the rise of the American power but was during the interventions on the Middle
East that the American power was displayed due to “… massive military buildup,
articulated an ambitious doctrine of peremption and expansive global security
objectives… to confront new-age threats”16.

As far as soft power the USA objectives are to expand and maintain the ideals of liberal
democracy, and its institutions. As president Bush said is also a ‘war of ideas’. Nye argue
that in order to the USA to achieve its objective of winning the War on Terror it has to
learn how to use more soft power instead of only hard power17. Nye’s argument is that the
use of only hard power by the US is not enough because on the war against terrorism
there is no real front. Terrorist cells can be at any location, from Boston to Rome to
London, what makes impossible, for instance, to attack those locations using only hard
power. The only way to fight terrorism in these situations is an increase on diplomatic
relations, intelligences networks in friendly countries in other words expanding American
soft power.

Strengthen American soft power around the globe is not only one of the objectives in the
war against terrorism but is also sought as a way to ensure American ideals of human

12
Ibid. 1. p.5.
13
BRAUER, Juergen & ANGLEWICZ, Nicholas. Two-Thirds On Defense. June 10,
2005. http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2005/0610defensedollar.htm.
10/08/05.
14
An Internet Guide to United States Military Bases Around the World.
http://www.libsci.sc.edu/bob/class/clis734/webguides/milbase.htm. 10/08/05.
15
JOHNSON, Chalmers. America’s Empire of Bases. January, 2004.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2004/01bases.htm. 10/08/05.
16
IKENBERRY, G. John. Liberal Hegemony or Empire? American Power in the Age of
Unipolarity. p. 83.a
17
NYE, Joseph S. Jr. Hard Power, Soft Power, and War on Terror. In: In: American
Power In the 21ST Century. Edited by David Held & Mathias Koenig-Archibugi. Polity
Press, 2004. pp. 114-131.
rights, liberal democracy and its economic institutions (such as IMF, World Bank and
WTO) in the world as cornerstones of international relations. The spread of American
soft power is connected to the globalisation process. In Shweder18 point o view the
globalization process is the process of transforming the world into Western-like
civilization where the West way is the best way, the American way. Zachary points out
the globalization process as the Americanization of the world19. Ensuring that the
American cultural, economic and moral values reach as far as they can reach is ensuring
that the American objectives in the War on Terror can be easily achieved.

Despites the fact that the US administration denies20 any connection between the War on
Terror and American interests on the Middle East oil reserves the connection
undeniable21. The maintenance of the status quo in the Middle East and the free flow of
oil can be considered as another of the objectives of the US administration on the War on
terror.

On one hand the USA is the number one consumer and importer of oil in the world along
side with other OECD members representing 70% of the oil imports in the world. On the
other hand the Middle East has the biggest oil reserves in the world. As most of OPEC
members are countries from the Middle East any decision form the OPEC regarding the

18
SHWEDER, Richard A. From "Free Trade" to "West is Best". The University of
Chicago Magazine. December, 2000.
http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0012/features/shweder.html. 09/08/05.
19
ZACHARY, Pascal G. The World Gets in Touch with Its Inner American. In: Mother
Jones January/February, 1999.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/01/americanization.html. 09/08/05.
20
RUMSFELD, Donald. It Would Be A Short War. In: CBS NEWS. November, 15, 2002.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/15/world/main529569.shtml. 10/08/05.
FLEISCHER, Ari. Press Briefing. The White House. February 6 2003.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030206-13.html. 10/08/05.
21
CAMILLERI, J.A. Terrorism, the War on Terror and the Globalisation of Insecurity.
Arena Journal, no. 19, 2002, pp. 7-20.
SCOTT, P.D. Bush’s Deep Reason for War on Iraq: Oil, Petrodollars and the OPEC Euro
Question. 27/05/03. http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html. 10/08/05.
CLARK, William. The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A
Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth. January 2003.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html. 10/08/05.
production, supply flow, price and currency in which oil is pegged is a concern to the
USA.

As Hiro22 points out, the USA involvements in the region, regarding oil, started in 1933
and in more the one occasion the USA used the argument of defending democratic values
to advance its military, economic and strategic interests in the region.

In 2000 the American interest in the Middle East was again on the spotlight, as Clark23
observes the US economic hegemony was under threat. On one hand the risk of oil
supply shortages was originated from two different causes: the phenomenon of peak oil24
and possible instabilities originated in Iraq that could affect other countries in the
region25, which were rapidly dealt with in the Iraq War and Saddam Hussein arrest. And
on the other hand there was possibility of changing the oil transaction standard currency
from the US dollar to the Euro putting at risk the American hegemony in the petrodollar
system.

As Engdahl26 observes, how the petrodollar system is fundamental to American


economic hegemony showing that the US dollar is the currency used in 70% of the
international trade and most of countries have monetary reserves in US dollars and even
more …every nation needs to get dollars to import oil, some more than others. This

22
HIRO, Dilip. Playing the Democracy Card. How America Furthers its Interests in the
Middle East. March 17, 2005.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/economy/2005/0317democracycard.htm. 11/08/05.
23
CLARK, William. The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A
Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth. January 2003.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html. 10/08/05.
24
PORTER, Adam. US report acknowledges peak-oil threat. Aljazeera Economy News
March 9 2005. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5EF86883-8CDB-49B5-9A07-
5759205A9DBE.htm. 10/08/05.
25
BAKER INSTITUTE STUDY. The Political, Economic, and Religious Trends in the
Middle East and The Gulf and Their Impact on the Energy Supply, Security and Pricing.
James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University. No. 3. April 1997.
http://bakerinstitute.org/Pubs/study_3.pdf. 10/08/05.
26
ENGDAHL F. William. A New American Century? Iraq and The Hidden Euro-Dollar
Wars. Current Concerns. No. 4. USA/Germany. 2003.
http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/2003/04/20030409.php. 10/08/05.
means their trade targets dollar countries, above all the US27. The threat of the euro as
Clark28 observes, is that if one ‘unlikely’ currency change from the US dollar to the Euro
happen among the OPEC member it could mean the end of the US economic hegemony
in the world switching places with Europe. The American presence in the middle, through
the geo strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves, works is
insurance policy to USA against any undesirable moves from the OPEC in the oil supply
or any moves towards a change in the oil currency to the euro.

The oil peak issue is the phenomenon when the world’s oil reserves reach their peak of
extraction then begins to decline. The oil peak phenomenon and its repercussion are
considered of extreme importance because represents threat to energy security for the
USA and the rest of the importing oil countries. In other words the end of low cost oil
supply has huge impacts on an economy like American that relies in large quantities of
oil. The shortages of oil would force drastic changes in American style of life and energy
consumption29. The question of energy security in the USA has been part of US security
polices for a while but from 9/11 on it became a synonym of vulnerability30 to American
status quo.

Regarding second question in this essay, to what extent is the US achieving the objectives
on the War on Terror; the answer can be accessed in two different parts. First one
regarding the US administration’s proposed objective, secondly the on maintenance of
the American status quo in the international system through its soft and hard power
presence and expansion world wide, and on the maintenance of the Middle East status
quo, according to American interests, and therefore ensuring the free flow of oil to and
the petrodollar system in the oil transactions.

27
Ibid. 24.
28
Ibid. 23.
29
THE ECONOMIST. The End of the Oil Age. 23 October 2003.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2155717. 10/08/05.
30
MAKHIJANI, Arjun. Securing the Energy Future of the United States. Oil, Nuclear,
and Electricity Vulnerabilities and a post-September 11, 2001 Roadmap for Action.
IEER. November 2001. http://www.ieer.org/reports/energy/bushrpt.pdf. 10/08/05.
About the War on Terror is necessary to point out that it is different war from every other
one the US engaged before. The war is against terrorism, in which the enemy does not
represent any regime or state, it does not have headquarter in a far distant country. The
war against terror involves fear against freedom, maintenance of the American Way of
Life and its democratic principles and liberties against a terrorist threat in US soil and
overseas.

Different from the World War II when after Pearl Harbour the US had a defined target
and feasible objectives, in the war against terrorism the target is terrorism itself and the
objectives is more than just freeing the world of the terrorist threat. The War on Terror is
not a conventional war where military power by itself can end the war. As president
George W. Bush said it is a ‘war of ideas’ a war of ‘good against evil’31. Goldhamer
argues that the war on terror is an ideological problem and not a military one; and can
only be solved by “…working with our allies and the world community to solve
legitimate international crises. Of course we, along with all non-violent, freedom-loving
peoples, must work together to find and arrest each and every individual who commits a
terrorist act or any other crime against humanity…”32

As far as securing Americans on domestic soil and offshore is concerned the achievement
of this objective is far from happening, insecurity as Camilleri points out is “…a malady
from which no one would be immune…”33. Despites the efforts of the US administration
in creating the Homeland Security Agency in order to help prevent, protect against, and
respond to acts of terrorism on United States soil34, as Carr35 points out it is a good

31
US WHITE HOUSE. National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, Feb 2003, p.2.
32
GOLDHAMER, John D. Why the Bush "War on Terror" is Fated to Fail. Published on
November 22, 2003 by CommonDreams.org.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1122-06.htm. 11/08/05.
33
CAMILLERI, J.A. Terrorism, the War on Terror and the Globalisation of Insecurity.
Arena Journal, no. 19, 2002, pp. 7-20.
34
THE WHITE HOUSE. Homeland Security.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/homeland/index.html. 10/08/05.
35
CARR, David. The futility of “Homeland Defense”. In: Perspectives on Terrorism.
How 9/11 Changed the U.S. Politics. Allan J. Gigler, Editor. Houghton Mifflin Company.
Boston. 2002. pp. 97-102.
initiative but unlikely to be successful due to extent of the American territory, population
number and variety and due to the characteristic of the terrorist warfare.

As far as destroying the enemy capabilities the achievement of the American objectives
can be seen in two different scopes. On one hand the USA war in Iraq and Afghanistan
put and end to the Taliban and Saddam Hussein regimes in those countries. But on the
other hand failed on prevent new attacks, like the London and the Bali bombings and
failed to destroy the Al Qaeda. According to Saad al-Fagih36 many of the Al Qaeda
members leaders and Bin Laden are at loose and still are a possible terrorist threat. al-
Fagih also argues that after the 9/11 due to anti American sentiment every Saudi is a
possible Bin Laden, representing therefore possible threats against America.

When president Bush stated that the countries in the ‘axis of evil’ (North Korea Iran and
Iraq) represented a threat to the world peace37 Bush tried to cut the alleged sponsorship
from these countries to terrorist network. As far as Iraq is concerned the Iraq War and the
occupation afterwards present some achievements towards the American goals. As far
North Korea and Iran there is still a question on how the US administration will deal with
it.

On regards the maintenance of the American status quo in the international system
through its soft and hard power presence and expansion worldwide. On one hand the
American hard power and its expansion, as was said before, are far greater than any other
in history no country is match to American military capabilities. American military
mighty around the world is undeniable a reaffirmation of the American status quo
maintenance as far as hard power is concerned. On the other hand as soft power is
concerned the globalisation process spread the American culture around the globe as a
blow in the wind, but the US hegemony an its unilateral actions in the international
system seem to bring as much problems as benefits to America specially if the anti-

36
AL-FAGIH, Saad. In search of Al Qaeda.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/search/interviews/alfagih.html. 11/08/05.
37
THE WHITE HOUSE. President Delivers State of the Union Address.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html. 11/08/05.
American characteristic of the terrorists attacks is considered.

On the maintenance of the Middle East status quo, according to American interests, and
the free flow of oil to and the petrodollar system two issues come to place. The USA
presence in Iraq put a leash on the possible intentions by Middle East countries to change
the oil currency from the US dollar to the euro. Although as Clark points out that could
change as a response to American occupation on Iraq and American unilateral actions.

“… occupation of Iraq could increase Al-Qaeda sponsored terrorism against U.S.


targets, or more likely create guerilla warfare in a post-war Iraq. Moreover, continued
U.S. unilateralism could create economic retribution from the international community
or OPEC…”. But it more likely that the American presence in the Middle East would
reinforced American’s influence in determining the maintenance of the oil flows
according to American’s interests even with the event o a oil peak. As said before the
American interventions on the Middle East are not a new phenomena and apparently with
the American occupation in Ira it is apparently far from ending.

Addressing the third question of the essay, who is winning the War on Terror, the
terrorist or the US and its allies, the first answer that come to our mind is the terrorist.
The War on Terror, despites all American and its allies capabilities, it is an unequal war.
Terrorism can be defined38 as its nature and objectives as a way to inflict terror to
someone or some collective of people and in order to do that it is not necessary to have a
huge army or military capabilities like the USA’s ones. The terrorist cells can be virtually
anywhere what makes more difficult to actually locate and defeat terrorists.
As said before there is no set front on the War on Terror, despites all efforts on stoping
terrorist and defeat terrorist around the world, the US and its allies, prevent the London
bombings and other attacks still can happened anywhere anytime.

38
GEARSON, John. The Nature of Modern Terrorism. In: Lawrence Freedman (ed),
Superterrorism: Policy Responses, pp. 7-24.
WIENZIERI, John. Terrorism: Its Origin and History. In: Akorlie A. Nyatepe-Coo and
Dorothy Zeisler-Vralsted (eds), Understanding Terrorism: Threats in an Uncertain World
(Person/Prentice Hall 2004), pp. 29-48.
As Al-Fagih said anyone in Saudi Arabia could be a possible enemy of the USA and
because of the nature of terrorist and how the attacks are performed, any one could
become a possible terrorist threat. Terrorist attacks do not have to be successful all the
times; they only have to be effective once to achieve the results wanted. On the contrary
America’s defence against terrorism has to be 100% effective to avoid that terrorists
succeed with theirs goals.
Another fact about The War on Terror as Goldhammer points out as a motive for the US
failing in the War is the ideological characteristic of it and another how the US cannot
win a war of ideological motivations with Military mighty. As Nye argued, weapons are
not enough to win the war, what is needed is soft power. But how soft power, ‘American
style’, will win a war that started in the first place as direct act of opposition and hate to
the same soft power? The same power that America is using to fight the War on Terror,
soft or hard is the motivation that drives terrorists to fight against America. That is by far
the greater reason why one can say that America is losing the War on Terror.
Bibliography

HOOK, Steven W. U.S. Foreign Policy. The Paradox of the World Power. CQ Press.
Washington. 2005. pp. 50-51.

CHANGING FACE OF TERRORISM. Edited by Rohan Gunaratna. Easter University


Press. Singapore. 2004.

AMERICA’S WAR TERROR. Edited by Patrick Hayden, Tom Lansford & Robert P.
Watson. Ashgate. England. 2003.

AMERICAN POWER IN THE 21st. Edited by David Held & Mathias Koenig-Archibugi.
Polity Press, 2004

PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM. HOW 9/11 CHANGED THE US POLITICS. Allan


J. Gigler, Editor. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston. 2002.

WENGER, Andreas & ZIMMERMANN, Doron. International Relations. From the Cold
War to the Globalized World. Rienner. London. 2003.

EASTERN CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY. US Military Interventions. United


States Wars and Major Military Interventions, 1898-2000.
http://www.easternct.edu/personal/faculty/pocock/milact.htm. 07/08/05.

WHITE HOUSE, The. A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement.


February 1996. http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/national/1996stra.htm. 07/08/05.

IKENBERRY, G. John. Liberal Hegemony or Empire? American Power in the Age of


Unipolarity. p.86.; In: American Power In the 21ST Century. Edited by David Held &
Mathias Koenig-Archibugi. Polity Press, 2004.

MANN, Michael. The First Failed Empire of the Twenty-First Century. In: American
Power In the 21ST Century. Edited by David Held & Mathias Koenig-Archibugi. Polity
Press, 2004. p. 53.

COX, Michael. The Bush Doctrine and Lessons of History. In: American Power In the
21ST Century. Edited by David Held & Mathias Koenig-Archibugi. Polity Press, 2004.

BUSH, George W. in: US WHITE HOUSE. National Strategy for Combating Terrorism,
Feb 2003, pp. 1-30. p. 1.
United Nation Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001). September 2001.
http://www1.oecd.org/fatf/pdf/SRES1373_en.pdf. 10/08/05.

CAMILLERI, J.A. Terrorism, the War on Terror and the Globalisation of Insecurity.
Arena Journal, no. 19, 2002, pp. 7-20. p.8-9;

BRAUER, Juergen & ANGLEWICZ, Nicholas. Two-Thirds On Defense. June 10, 2005.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2005/0610defensedollar.htm. 10/08/05.

An Internet Guide to United States Military Bases Around the World.


http://www.libsci.sc.edu/bob/class/clis734/webguides/milbase.htm. 10/08/05.

JOHNSON, Chalmers. America’s Empire of Bases. January, 2004.


http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2004/01bases.htm. 10/08/05.

NYE, Joseph S. Jr. Hard Power, Soft Power, and War on Terror. In: In: American Power
In the 21ST Century. Edited by David Held & Mathias Koenig-Archibugi. Polity Press,
2004. pp. 114-131.

SHWEDER, Richard A. From "Free Trade" to "West is Best". The University of


Chicago Magazine. December, 2000.
http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0012/features/shweder.html. 09/08/05.

ZACHARY, Pascal G. The World Gets in Touch with Its Inner American. In: Mother
Jones January/February, 1999.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/01/americanization.html. 09/08/05.

RUMSFELD, Donald. It Would Be A Short War. In: CBS NEWS. November, 15, 2002.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/15/world/main529569.shtml. 10/08/05.

FLEISCHER, Ari. Press Briefing. The White House. February 6 2003.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030206-13.html. 10/08/05.

CAMILLERI, J.A. Terrorism, the War on Terror and the Globalisation of Insecurity.
Arena Journal, no. 19, 2002, pp. 7-20.

SCOTT, P.D. Bush’s Deep Reason for War on Iraq: Oil, Petrodollars and the OPEC Euro
Question. 27/05/03. http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html. 10/08/05.

CLARK, William. The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A
Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth. January 2003.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html. 10/08/05.
HIRO, Dilip. Playing the Democracy Card. How America Furthers its Interests in the
Middle East. March 17, 2005.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/economy/2005/0317democracycard.htm. 11/08/05.

PORTER, Adam. US report acknowledges peak-oil threat. Aljazeera Economy News


March 9 2005. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5EF86883-8CDB-49B5-9A07-
5759205A9DBE.htm. 10/08/05.

BAKER INSTITUTE STUDY. The Political, Economic, and Religious Trends in the
Middle East and The Gulf and Their Impact on the Energy Supply, Security and Pricing.
James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University. No. 3. April 1997.
http://bakerinstitute.org/Pubs/study_3.pdf. 10/08/05.

ENGDAHL F. William. A New American Century? Iraq and The Hidden Euro-Dollar
Wars. Current Concerns. No. 4. USA/Germany. 2003.
http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/2003/04/20030409.php. 10/08/05.

THE ECONOMIST. The End of the Oil Age. 23 October 2003.


http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2155717. 10/08/05.

MAKHIJANI, Arjun. Securing the Energy Future of the United States. Oil, Nuclear, and
Electricity Vulnerabilities and a post-September 11, 2001 Roadmap for Action. IEER.
November 2001. http://www.ieer.org/reports/energy/bushrpt.pdf. 10/08/05.

US WHITE HOUSE. National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, Feb 2003, p.2.

GOLDHAMER, John D. Why the Bush "War on Terror" is Fated to Fail. Published on
November 22, 2003 by CommonDreams.org.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1122-06.htm. 11/08/05.

CAMILLERI, J.A. Terrorism, the War on Terror and the Globalisation of Insecurity.
Arena Journal, no. 19, 2002, pp. 7-20.

THE WHITE HOUSE. Homeland Security.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/homeland/index.html. 10/08/05.

CARR, David. The futility of “Homeland Defense”. In: Perspectives on Terrorism. How
9/11 Changed the U.S. Politics. Allan J. Gigler, Editor. Houghton Mifflin Company.
Boston. 2002. pp. 97-102.

AL-FAGIH, Saad. In search of Al Qaeda.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/search/interviews/alfagih.html. 11/08/05.
THE WHITE HOUSE. President Delivers State of the Union Address.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html. 11/08/05.
GEARSON, John. The Nature of Modern Terrorism. In: Lawrence Freedman (ed),
Superterrorism: Policy Responses, pp. 7-24.

WIENZIERI, John. Terrorism: Its Origin and History. In: Akorlie A. Nyatepe-Coo and
Dorothy Zeisler-Vralsted (eds), Understanding Terrorism: Threats in an Uncertain World
(Person/Prentice Hall 2004), pp. 29-48.

THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT. Printed in the United States of America. W.W.
Norton & Company. London New York.

Вам также может понравиться