War on Terror Fuels Terrorism

United States President George W. Bush dubbed the terrorist activities as “acts of war” and embarked on a “war on terrorism.” This campaign paved the way to put an end to Afghanistan’s heads of state, the Taliban, who had wrapped in cotton wool bin Laden since 1996. It is now clear that the Bush Administration failed to make adequate contingency plans in the event the bombing did not work. He had made an unacceptable error of overlooking the amplified possibility of fatalities (Light, 2002).

Dependence on the dazzling might of technology has blinded the alliance and made them terribly concur to a seemingly feasible end. NATO dramatically overestimated its destruction of enemy tanks, artillery pieces, and armor vehicles. A bold offensive flushed the army into the open so that a series of B-52 bomber strikes could inflict devastating casualties. If there is any parallel to Vietnam in all of this, it is in the way in which the military is getting involved.

Besides, the idea that the United States is obligated to intervene militarily to stop human rights violations in certain countries raises troubling strategic and moral issues (Skene, 2001). It raises questions about why some people’s human rights appear more important than those of others. One that concerns the whole globe the most is the United States’ intelligence process of racial profiling.

            The most perfect search efforts in the world are weighed down in locating the dissenters whose minds seem perfect when it comes to going underground while detonating big cities. Identification is therefore deemed a necessary part of the investigative process. However, if the assessor crosses the line sheltering religion, race, or ethnicity, do we call it righteous? It depends. Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are of Muslim background but do we estimate a Muslim’s apprehension on the basis of this religious affinity? It is merely incidental that the police are searching the Muslim-dominated countries because it is what constitutes their common sense. Osama or Saddam may be seen hopping from one Middle East state to another but not perceptibly from one Buddhist territory to another, as he may not want his veiled head to be seen amidst the sea of skinheads. But this is not as simple as it looks at face value. Common sense is not even a sound excuse for erroneous or second-rate investigation.

The preferable alternative could have been to realign the military means to the political objectives. But clearly that requires the use of ground forces. That’s a dangerous tactic to this date. Some urged more ambitious objectives. Depose Osama bin Laden, modify or abandon the political objectives (Light, 2002). Maybe, they are not wise but at least they are more coherent than the current policy. More to the point, the United States should use military force only when its vital interests are threatened.

Works Cited

Light, Gail R. (June 20, 2002).  “Security vs. Liberty: weighing the options.” Accessed May 8, 2006. Available: http://www.msutoday.msu.edu/research/index.php3?article=20Jun2002-9.

Skene, Neil. (2001).  “Sacrificing Freedoms in the Name of Saving Them.” Atlanta: Creative Loafing.