The Political Consequences Of The American War On Terror In Afghanistan (1998-2008).

This work investigates The Political Consequences of the American War on Terror in Afghanistan (1998-2008). The real security risk in the near future does not seem to come from strong and developed countries, with stable governments, but from failed states. This work examines the impact of the Al Qaeda movement since 1998, with the US Embassy bombings in Africa (Tanzania and Kenya). The work goes further to investigate the despicable bombings of the World Trade Center and Pentagon buildings in USA on September 11, 2001. The work examines how US, NATO and the globe have waged wars on terrorist groups, especially Al Qaeda, which among all the other terrorist groups brought the world to a standstill in a single operation in this 21st Century. As a superpower, a clash between US's interest and the world is inevitable. But a critical lesson that was learnt from the 2001 Al Qaeda bombings was that it must go to the trouble before the trouble gets at its door.CHAPTER 1. THE FORMATION OF AN ISLAMIC CALIPHATE AND INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS ON TERRORISM.On December 25th 1979, the USSR 40th"Limited Contingent"rolled into Afghanistan to install a socialist regime. Through this, an embittered radical strain in the Sunni Islam called for a Jihad, which they referred to as the Sixth Pillah of Islam. To understand the rise of the Sunni Jihadism as a revolutionary movement both in Europe and Asia, all started with the USSR's invasion, (the 1979 - 1980s conflict is referred to in Jihad circles as the"Mother of Jihads"). Before the 9/11, the Sunni Muslims by contrast were less threatening to American interests in the Middle East. The preference for this was that during the cold war, America focused more on USSR, whom they viewed as the"Evil Empire."Any state or region at this time which could assist the American struggle and power over USSR was regarded as an ally. Even the Sunni Muslims were defined by America as fellow believers in the black and white struggle with the"evil Soviet atheism."These Sunni allies later contributed to the forging of the Jihad movement that Al Qaeda emanated from. The fault of these Sunni allies with their war were largely ignored as US viewed the world during this time through the lenses of the cold war. During all these events, even the Pakistani fundamentalist dictator, General Zia ul Haq, who actively helped to undermine Soviet influence in Afghanistan, was overlooked. Because of his actions against USSR, his propensity for developing bona fide nuclear weapons of mass destruction and arming Sunni extremists was overlooked, as President Reagan of US saw him as an ally. Even the Wahhabi Saudis refused to establish diplomatic ties with the"Soviet atheist infidels"; and helped to undermine Soviet interest in the Arab world. Because of this and most notably the oil, the Saudis human rights record, sponsorship of Palestinian terrorism, repression of democratic opposition, disenfranchisement of women, and the medieval interpretation of puritanical Wahhabi Islam were accepted by US diplomats. Radical Sunni Islamic Brotherhood smuggled Qurans and subversive Islamic literature into USSR. From Morocco to Indonesia, Sunni Muslims were led by imams to bemoan the oppressions of their fellow Muslim brothers and sisters in the USSR. With great covert espionage– intelligence– military operation, US helped the Sunni Muslims to turn Afghanistan into quagmire for the Soviets. The subsequent operation driven by the CIA, British M16, Pakistan Inter-Service Intelligence, Saudi Istikhabarat (Military Intelligence), Egyptian Mukhabarat (General Intelligence), and most surprisingly, the Israeli Mossad, was to revive the dormant concept of Jihad in the Secular Sunni world and turn the Soviet occupation into a bloody defeat for USSR. While much of this"Operation CIA-Jihad"was conducted under the supervision of the various intelligence agencies under their governments and regions, there was an unofficial grass-root component to the operation itself. The result of all this was to breed an uncontrollable people's movement which forged the Jihadist brotherhood, that would subsequently wage terror on the West and other parts of the world. People generally believe that the implementation of human rights will remove conflicts from societies and bring peace in the universe. Modern terrorism consists of threats to the global community, a threat which no nation can resolve alone, except with the help of a global response. The work has examined the creation and development of these international norms that had delegitimized terrorism between 1968 to 2008. There are two types of international conventions on terrorism. There are those that are open to ratification. There are 13 in number, although only 12 are in force. The second type is the regional multilateral terrorist conventions such as the Council of European Convention for Prevention of Terrorism (2006). At the center of all, lies United Nations Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC), created in 2001 to monitor the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1373. Consisting of all 15 members of the Security Council, the CTC pushes states to ratify all existing UN Conventions on terrorism - as well as related regional agreements, and to enact the domestic legislation necessary for their enforcement. So far, all the conventions obligate states to refrain from organizing, instigating, financing, assisting and abetting terrorist acts.CHAPTER 2. HEGEMONIC COMPETITION AND THE APPLICATION OF THE JUST WAR THEORY IN THE 21ST CENTURY.The powers of Al Qaeda and its influence require scholars to develop models that consider its strategic significance. At the most basic level, scholars need to reconsider the role of ideology and the relevance of sub-national actors in the theoretical and policy implications of balance of power and hegemonic theories. It is not Al Qaeda itself that becomes the threat, but its ideological movement which might take root in the globally powerful states. Al Qaeda's hegemonic nature rests not on its ultimate ability to use the power of a global champion to challenge the US for hegemony, but its potential to undermine US ideologically and politically; while breaking nations and regimes out of the US hegemonic system. It does provide inspirational, operational supports, and an ideology for many groups who seek to overthrow the status quo in their nations and regions. Because of this, Al Qaeda as the centerpiece of a revolutionary and violently militant ideology can be seen as a global insurgency which presents an asymmetric challenge to US hegemony throughout the world. Al Qaeda ideology could plunge nations into instability or civil wars. Examples of these are Afghanistan and Somalia. The self-identity needs of states are manifested in their sense of honor. Thus the US practice represents policies that reflect identity commitments. Because these disciplinary mechanisms are driven by self-identity and protecting the honor of the US, domestic and international actors can use tactics as terrorism to manipulate such identity in order to coerce the US into ending its practices. Terrorists can expose practices in ways that contradicts the private efficiency of modern punishment. Such manipulations can produce criticism in the international community, to shame US or any other state involved; and such shame is inversely associated with honor. Because of this, the just war theory has been used of late to evaluate the morality of military actions by states against terrorists and rogue states. This has come about as a result of America's involvement in Afghanistan. Just War refers to any war that generally accepts international criteria of justification. Through this view, a Just War is a means of national self help through which states attempt to enforce rights actually or allegedly based on International Law. While the terrorist group may depend on clandestine assistance from states willing to help them secretly, they are not publicly responsible to them. Since contemplation of Just War requires public authorities to act on their behalf, that objective cannot be met because there is no identifiable enemy state against which to act. As a result of this, the international community has decided to declare war against terrorism in general as"just."But to remove barriers and confusion from the international community in this 21st century, the Just War theory must be revisited to meet challenges of terrorist activities and rogue states.CHAPTER 3. COURSES, PROCESSES OF THE WAR ON TERROR AND THE SECURITY POLITICS BEHIND RELIGIOUS AND SECULAR VIOLENCE IN AFGHANISTANEvents around the globe since the end of the Cold War have been those of conflicts, many of which are violations of the sanctity of state sovereignty in the definitive character of the US liberal doctrine. Operation Enduring Freedom, which began on October 9, 2001 took the form of hundreds of Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from US and British ships and submarines operating in the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf on Afghanistan. During the resulting bombing campaign, US air power was used to rain Joint Direct Ammunitions (JDAM) and laser guided bombs on all known Al Qaeda training facilities. The US response to Al Qaeda assault indicates the glorious Jihad predicted by bin Laden, which would materialize in Central Asia. Bin Laden has become the most known figure in the globe. An emerging clash of civilization has revealed itself in international terrorism especially after 9/11. This is a conflict between Islamic civilization and other civilizations, particularly the West. The embarrassment which Osama and his group brought to the Afghans should be a lesson to other nations, not to support terrorists in any way. It would have been better for the Afghans to stand firmly against the Taliban and force them to drive out bin Laden and his group than to have gone through all the chaos, loss of lives and properties, mental torture, trauma, and the dehumanization they went through during the US invasion in 2001. The central goal of Bush's War on Terror however is to eliminate or de-legitimate terror as a method to influence other states in formulating their foreign policies; and to send a message to other states that they must assume responsibility for controlling terrorists within their borders. The War on Terror is not a war against Muslims. Bin Laden was a wanted man by the UN for his involvement in the 1998 Africa terrorist bombings. Even his citizenship was taken away from him in 1994 by the Saudi government, where he was born; all because of his evil ideology.CHAPTER 4. HOW ACTIONS AFFECT IDEAS IN RESOLVING CONFLICTS, AND ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES TO COMBAT TERRORISMThe cost and success of an actions outcome are critical in predicting how global war on terrorism affects notions of sovereignty. Although the norm of sovereignty and non-intervention are clearly stated in the UN Charter under Article 2, yet they are continually violated by political decision-making bodies to address pressing international issues such as human right abuse– Kosovo, nuclear development– Iraq, and the spread of terrorism– Afghanistan. All these actions are influenced by international norms concerning states rights and responsibilities in the global community. The case in Afghanistan is the first time a global coalition has intervened on behalf of counter-terrorism. In this case, the Taliban regime failed to fulfill its international obligation in thwarting terrorism, though there had been previous condemnation by UN against the Taliban for its support of Al Qaeda. While the relationship between the Al Qaeda and Taliban is not new, 9/11 served as a turning point for the international community to prioritize combating terrorism in their policy. Amidst events, new justification for military intervention has emerged which sought to reframe the debate on sovereignty. A state cannot be sovereign unless it is recognized so by other states in the international system. Rights and obligations vary according to the international context. In Europe, NATO intervened in the former Yugoslavia on behalf of Albanian Kosovars and Bosnians threatened by ethnic cleansing. In Asia, the UN military intervened in Cambodia and helped build the country. In many of these cases, the decision to intervene has reflected peoples changing ideas about state sovereignty. The War on Terror provides an opportunity to observe whether or not conceptions of sovereignty have changed among state actors. With the end of the cold war and the rise in terrorist attacks, especially on major powers by non-state actors, the global War on Terror arguably replaces the cold war, as it has called on states to collectively fight terrorism. At this time of the US history, one cannot take terrorism out of its politics. The aggressive overreaction by the Bush administration at the initial stage of the 9/11 attacks was necessary, to assure the citizens that the government was able to protect them, and can also overreact if the need arise. Terrorist activities can be checked by states through strengthening their security system. This can include well trained domestic intelligence, strict border control measures, port security initiatives, and any other measures that can make it harder for terrorists to successfully attack a state. Terrorists can live in any state and still operate. Those that bombed US did not go back to Afghanistan to acquire weapon; they made use of airplanes as missiles. It is because of this that immigration in states should be vigilant, by inspecting every passport more carefully. Illegal arms merchants must be under close scrutiny, while weapon dealers should be more vigilant about individuals who might be terrorists. Al Qaeda is yet the most violent terrorist group that has come up. It therefore needs harsh options to either put fear in them or crush them totally.CHAPTER 5. UNDERSTANDING THE BUSH DOCTRINE IN INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS, AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE NEW TERRORThis work examines two aspects of the politics of post 9/11 foreign policy. These include the development of an expansive and aggressive Bush Doctrine, characterized by preemptive and preventive war. Secondly, the revival of a positive discourse on US Empire and hegemony within policy and opinion circle is examined. It shows and categorizes a range of interpretations of these developments from the political left, which seeks to explore elements of continuity and change in the foreign policy approach of the Bush Administration. The Bush Doctrine evolved through three phases from 2001 to 2006 National Security Strategy. This change was quite different from that in his 2000 campaign in which foreign policy played only a minor role. In 2002, the Bush administration put together the elements of a more far-reaching foreign policy doctrine based on unilateral action, preemptive military strikes, and prevention of the emergence of any strategic rivals to US supremacy. While the security strategy document has been seen to endorse preemptive military action, it might more accurately be seen as attempting to legitimize the radical concept of preventive war; or a decision to attack now to prevent a real threat in the future. While such justification could easily be used by any country to attack any other, it has long been established in the legal circles that preemptive war is completely illegitimate. The difference between war and politics is becoming more obscure as war is not merely an instrument of politics but has become an essential form of it. The actions of both Al Qaeda and Bush show that war no longer needs political reasoning. US even see the war on terror in Afghanistan as a just and necessary reaction to 9/11, while Al Qaeda saw the bombing as the hand of god falling on the enemy. This work investigates the political outcome of the War on Terror on both US and Afghanistan, which includes the flaws, victories and losses. It makes a conclusion that counter terrorism can only be achieved in Afghanistan when it is fought side by side with counter narcotics operations; one cannot succeed without the other.