Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

1

Americas War on Terror


As we all know the United States government is involved in a war on terror around the
globe. This is not a conventional war like those in the past, fought primarily in the battlefield by
men and women on the ground. A big part of this war is done electronically and remotely. This
has spawned many new policies and agencies created by the United States government to give
them more power in these new battlefields. This government is reaching to influence more parts
of the world than ever before with electronic surveillance, drone strikes, and troops on the
ground, as a result it has brought about the issue of overstepping political boundaries and
invading the privacy of individuals. In todays day and age we are all connected one way or
another, with our cell phones in our pockets or our computers at home. We are all susceptible to
being monitored at any time during the day. Not only is this happening domestically but it is also
happening abroad in countries around the world. With the latest revelations that confirm US
spying, this issue is more relevant now than ever before. The overreach of our government today
started with the invention of the war on terror more than 10 years ago. In this paper I will discuss
the broadening powers of the United States government, the decisions it makes regarding
military intervention, how it affects the American people and why this war needs to be brought to
an end.
I intend to frame this issue by stating first off that what our government has done and is
doing in regards to its foreign policy is just plain wrong and is giving the next generation a big
hurdle to overcome. There is a problem because these decisions lead directly to the deaths of
many innocent people. If those people that agree with what is happening could see firsthand
exactly what our government is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan they would think differently about

2
my issue. I pose my issue in the way I do, stating that it is the government creating the problem,
because our war on terror has risen from the policys put in place by those in office. It can be said
that we elected these people to office so blame can also be put on those that vote. The solution
propose will be to limit greatly our overseas presence and policing. No more drone strikes on
targets abroad in an attempt to stop attacks that no one is sure will ever happen. Also more
transparency in those government agencies that can and do spy on us. The government has used
the issue of terrorism to promote these agencies, Department of Homeland Security, and policies,
The Patriot Act, that only increase their authority and further limit citizens rights.
The broadening powers of the US government hurt its people and extend beyond the
powers a government should have. One claim for this would be to point out that the amount of
spying the government does has gotten out of control and it now beyond that of being protective.
We know this know due to people like Edward Snowden making the effort to inform the people
by leaking government documents. The first leak, published by the Guardian newspaper in
June, showed that the U.S. government was systematically collecting records of all Americans'
phone calls -- not just those suspected of a crime.(Luiza, para. 3). There used to be a time when
spying meant you had to physically be somewhere and listen to a conversation or to pick up
some documents. With the world we live in now being that of an information age, almost
everyones personal information is stored somewhere electronically. As well as all
communication is done electronically and can be monitored. This makes everyones daily
activities susceptible to spying. While we all can agree that spying to some degree can be
protective, it becomes an ethical problem when peoples lives are invaded and personal
information taken without knowledge. We cannot let our government continue to do this
unimpeded. As Ron Watson puts it in his paper The Ethics of Domestic Government Spying,

3
domestic government spying should follow five principles - just cause, proportionality,
necessity, minimization, and discrimination - and that these principles should be
institutionalized. (Watson 4). He is saying that some forms of spying are crucial in the fight to
stop criminals and that it should continue to a degree. But that there need to be federal
regulations set forth on these agencies and that they need to be monitored to ensure regulations
are being followed. I will agree with him that spying can be good when it done the right way and
for the right reason. But with people being the way they are we need to know that they are
following ethical guidelines and legal guidelines.
Another reason the war on terror should end starts with those that say the U.S.
government uses the war as a front to control power and information abroad. To do this the
government uses subtle propaganda to control the emotions of U.S. citizen and non-citizen alike
to agree with the actions they take and for some to even encourage more action. Evidence to
support these reasons is hard to come by solely because if the claims were true the government
would keep it top secret. Any plans to start a war based on lies to control the flow of money and
information in the world would be done covertly with all those involved in the decision making
sworn to secrecy. As we have seen with whistleblowers in recent times there are many things the
government is doing that is considered wrong by the public but done anyways, like wiretapping,
and then is justified because they are keeping us safe. Some evidence would be that reasons we
are given for engaging in this war never come to fruition, like finding the weapons of mass
destruction. No weapons were ever found, as far as we know, and the only thing that has come
out of the war is the death of thousands of people with many of those people being American
soldiers. When these people against the war argue that the US government has lied to us and
started a war for money and power they assume that it is because those in power want to stay in

4
power and they will use any means necessary to do this and like I stated before they will use
propaganda to further this cause. This is detailed in my source Powerful Emotions: Power
Government and Opposition In The 'War on Terror, by Ian Burkitt. In this article he describes
how the language used in media after the September 11 attacks and in the lead up to the invasion
of Iraq was that to evoke fear, fear of another terrorist attack or fear of losing a loved one, and
hope, hope that a war would stop these attacks and solve the problem. Also how anger was used
to control the population to agree with a war and want to restore what was lost as an American
symbol of power. He describes how evoking emotions in a population can be very powerful to
direct thinking. The very use of the words War on Terror, as used in the title of the article, was
used to unify public opinion, as Burkitt states. He also explains how this propaganda does not
always work and can in turn have the opposite effect on some people as shown by the support
this group against the war on terror receives from many around the world.
On the other side of the issue there are those that want to continue Americas War on
Terror. The people who are for the war on terror can be called more or less patriotic as they
believe we are waging war against those who wish to do Americans harm. Theirs is the course to
rid the world of extremists and terrorists that they think will continue to attack the US whether
we continue the war or not. To this group of people the extremists throughout the world are
Muslims and have chosen there violent course because of their religion. It is claimed that these
terrorists, regardless of origin, see the United States as godless liberalists and intend to eradicate
them from the earth, and that this is their gods will. This negative opinion of Muslims fuels this
groups emotions. those with a negative overall view of Muslims should be more likely to
support the War on Terror (Sides, 7). The only way to win for those advocating the war is to
wipe these kind of people out. Another claim of this group to justify the war is that our nations

5
security has improved tenfold since before the war on terror began. They argue that it is because
of this war that we are better able to protect ourselves now than ever before. Reasons to support
this claim are that the government has created agencies and legislation meant to plan for and
prevent terrorists attacks with legal impunity. The Department of Homeland Security was
created in 2002, bringing over twenty government agencies together to combat the threat of a
terrorist attack domestically. Not only that but the Patriot Act was passed in 2001 giving the CIA,
FBI, police and other agencies the power to use wiretaps and delayed notification warrants.
These government actions were a result of the start and continuity of the war on terror.
Common ground on the issue of the global war on terrorism is a hard thing to come by.
On one side of the issue there are those that believe the war is justified by the outcome it brings
of preventing terrorist attacks in the US, these claims come from those calling themselves
patriots. On the other side people believe that the attack just encourage more to fight against us
and bring the fight to our doorstep. The only thing these two sides share is that they want to do
whatever protects us at home and abroad. They have two very different ways to get to that goal,
but they believe there way is the right way to bring peace. Those for the war believe peace can
only be had by getting rid of those that wish us harm. For example some of those for the war will
argue that by taking the fight to the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan we are protecting ourselves
from attack here in the US but those against the war would argue that this tactic does not prevent
attack but encourages more terrorists to emerge with a renewed hate and plan more attacks,
which in turn will end up hurting more people than it saves. Both positions want to help but they
cannot agree on the best possible cause of action. An issue of divergence is when it comes to
national security on the one hand those for the war believe a tighter national security,
wiretapping and electronic surveillance to name a few, are good ways to protect ourselves and

6
prevent further attack. While those on the other end against the war believe this is an invasion of
citizens privacy and most of all illegal. Those against the war believe that peace is already here
we just have to encourage it and stop the violence. They do say that one cannot live in a world
without loss because there are people out there that will do crazy things. But these are not just
one race of people of one specific group. Both sides differ on whether or not we should be
fighting at all but they also agree that there needs to be more transparency when it comes to
government decisions. With recent allegations of government spying with the explanation that it
is to combat terrorism in the US, more and more would like to know exactly what the
government is doing.
As I have shown throughout this paper, I am not a fan of the war. I believe it was created
by the government for the benefit of those in power. Most people believe it was a necessity after
the attacks of Sep 11. But if that were the case then this war would have ended with the death of
Osama Bin Laden. But it has continued and the reach of our government has only extended year
after year. This issue matters to me because of the fact that I have two kids who will inherit the
world we leave them. I can see firsthand how it will negatively affect them. However I also
believe that we need to combat those that wish to do others harm. But we cannot take away our
citizens freedoms and privacy in the process of doing this. There is a fine line between a
government keeping us safe and controlling what we do in the name of safety. I hope that those
that read this article will consider the implications of the policies in place now and do what they
can to change them.

7
Works Cited
Burkitt, Ian. "Powerful Emotions: Power Government and Opposition in the 'War on
Terror'." Sociology 39.4 (2005): 679-695. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Oct. 2013.
Katel, Peter. "The Iraq War: 10 Years Later." CQ Researcher 1 Mar. 2013: 205-32. Web. 7 Oct.
2013.
Krauthammer, Charles. ". . . Why That's Ridiculous." Time 18 July 2005: 49. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 7 Oct. 2013.
O'Connell, Mary Ellen. "The Legal Case against the Global War on Terror." Case Western
Reserve Journal of International Law 36.2/3 (2004): 349-357. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 7 Oct. 2013.
Pitchford, Jenna. "The Global War On Terror, Identity, And Changing Perceptions: Iraqi
Responses To America's War In Iraq." Journal of American Studies 45.4 (2011):
695. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Oct. 2013.
Pearson, John. "Point: Justification for the War on Terror." Points Of View: War On
Terror (2013): 5. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 23 Oct. 2013.
Savage, Luiza CH. "Enemy of the States." Maclean's 126.48/49 (2013): 90. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 18 Nov. 2013.
Sides, John, and Kimberly Gross. "Stereotypes of Muslims and Support for the War on
Terror." Journal of Politics 75.3 (2013): 583-598. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6
Dec. 2013.
"War on terror based on "pack of lies" for imperial designs - Afghan paper." BBC Monitoring
South Asia - Political Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring. (June 16, 2013 Sunday):
838 words. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2013/10/07.

8
Watson, Ron. "The Ethics of Domestic Government Spying." (2013). Google Scholar. Web. 13
Nov. 2013.

Вам также может понравиться