Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 debate has circulated around the nature and success of counterterrorism policies. Considering after thirteen years, the world has not faced a major attack on the same scale as those witnessed in 2001; counterterrorism policies by some have been argued to be a phenomenal success. This article will focus on counterterrorism policies by the United States, positing the argument that the success of these policies cannot be determined by the mere lack of terrorist attacks, but by the effects of these policies
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 debate has circulated around the nature and success of counterterrorism policies. Considering after thirteen years, the world has not faced a major attack on the same scale as those witnessed in 2001; counterterrorism policies by some have been argued to be a phenomenal success. This article will focus on counterterrorism policies by the United States, positing the argument that the success of these policies cannot be determined by the mere lack of terrorist attacks, but by the effects of these policies
Power Politics: the UN, Iraq and The Principle of Sovereign EqualityQUESTJOURNAL
ABSTRACT: In international relations discourse and possibly international law, no term has been so widely used than that of sovereignty, to the extent that its utilitarian values are today in doubt. Sovereignty is definitely a concept that has influenced the pattern of international life. Just like nationalism, sovereignty is the main threat to internationalism and world government. It is on this line that many analysts conceive sovereignty as having the potentials to frustrate world order through its emotionalism, narrow ethics, variations in form, ambivalence, necessity to forge a union, between nation and state and denial of reality of interdependence. Nonetheless, contrary to all set rules, nations act based on the principle of sovereignty. Nations are more than prepared to flout international rules due to their intolerant interpretations of what sovereignty is or is not. The United Nations endorsement of the concept of sovereign equality of all states has magnified the misconception as if sovereignty is synonymous with equality of states. It is in the midst of these analytical misconceptions that the need for a re-examination of the notion of sovereign equality of states arises . The UN involvement in the Iraqi wars would be used to demonstrate how sovereignty does not reflect the reality in world politics.
Extremism and terrorism are not new phenomena that humanity has to deal with. They have been there in the history of mankind ever since the human population started to increase on this planet. In the past, there have been despotic leaders, individuals, andgroups of people who used extremism and terrorism as a means to exterminate others in order to hold onto power and exert their dominance. The researchers of this small-scale qualitative study had critically analyzed what is happening to the Muslims and what needs to be done in encountering the challenges of global extremism and terrorism. The researchers took a non-partisan stand in analyzing objectively terrorism in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack that shocked the US and the world at large. The crux of the discussion in this research was centered around on the issues as to why western media take a double standard in reporting terror attacks around the globe, why the oppressed and displaced people of the world resort to terrorism, are terrorists born or made, what lessons can be learned by countries that are faced with terror attacks and racial tensions from role-model countries that are successful in maintaining peace and harmony within their diverse population. Besides discussing the main issues, the researchers have put forward their idealism for world peace and on how the world should stand united in combatting the alarming rate of extremism and terror attacks that happen all over the world today. Data pertinent to the research were collected from print and internet sources and later analyzed by using the textual-analysis method. The findings of this research have brought to light that extremism and terrorism cannot be eliminated by simply using brute force and bombing campaigns. Countries embroiled with terror attacks need to study objectively the underlying factors that trigger extremism and terrorism.
IN THIS SUMMARY
In No End to War, Walter Laqueur deals with the new elements in contemporary terrorism, why terrorism came so suddenly, and why it is so often and so thoroughly misinterpreted. Terrorism has changed over time and so have the terrorists, their motives, and the causes of terrorism. During the 1990s, a new factor arose that became the most prominent component of world terrorism: Islamic terrorism, especially from al Qa’ida under Osama bin Laden.
SUBSCRIBE TODAY
http://www.bizsum.com/summaries/no-end-war
The Bush era has seen remarkable change in the US foreign policy. After 9/ 11 attacks, President Bush (the son) initiated the Bush Doctrine and started his war on terror which had such implications as the invasion of Afghanistan in 2011, and the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Abstract: This study examined United States and democratization in Iraq. The study was anchored on the
democratic peace theory as propounded by Immanuel Kant in 1795. The study adopted ex-post research design
while data was gotten from secondary source such as textbooks, journal articles, newspapers, magazines and
internet and the data generated was analyzed through content analysis. The findings of the study showed that The
United States efforts to adoptive democracy was widely implemented by a range of governmental and nongovernmental actors in Iraq, but it has yielded far less than what was promised and United States interest has had
negative effects on democratization in Iraq as the dissolution of the Iraqi army has resulted to security vacuum in
Iraq. Based on the findings the study recommended among others; Democracy should not be seen as a United
States import but rather an indigenous adaptation of general principles by Iraqi people.
Power Politics: the UN, Iraq and The Principle of Sovereign EqualityQUESTJOURNAL
ABSTRACT: In international relations discourse and possibly international law, no term has been so widely used than that of sovereignty, to the extent that its utilitarian values are today in doubt. Sovereignty is definitely a concept that has influenced the pattern of international life. Just like nationalism, sovereignty is the main threat to internationalism and world government. It is on this line that many analysts conceive sovereignty as having the potentials to frustrate world order through its emotionalism, narrow ethics, variations in form, ambivalence, necessity to forge a union, between nation and state and denial of reality of interdependence. Nonetheless, contrary to all set rules, nations act based on the principle of sovereignty. Nations are more than prepared to flout international rules due to their intolerant interpretations of what sovereignty is or is not. The United Nations endorsement of the concept of sovereign equality of all states has magnified the misconception as if sovereignty is synonymous with equality of states. It is in the midst of these analytical misconceptions that the need for a re-examination of the notion of sovereign equality of states arises . The UN involvement in the Iraqi wars would be used to demonstrate how sovereignty does not reflect the reality in world politics.
Extremism and terrorism are not new phenomena that humanity has to deal with. They have been there in the history of mankind ever since the human population started to increase on this planet. In the past, there have been despotic leaders, individuals, andgroups of people who used extremism and terrorism as a means to exterminate others in order to hold onto power and exert their dominance. The researchers of this small-scale qualitative study had critically analyzed what is happening to the Muslims and what needs to be done in encountering the challenges of global extremism and terrorism. The researchers took a non-partisan stand in analyzing objectively terrorism in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack that shocked the US and the world at large. The crux of the discussion in this research was centered around on the issues as to why western media take a double standard in reporting terror attacks around the globe, why the oppressed and displaced people of the world resort to terrorism, are terrorists born or made, what lessons can be learned by countries that are faced with terror attacks and racial tensions from role-model countries that are successful in maintaining peace and harmony within their diverse population. Besides discussing the main issues, the researchers have put forward their idealism for world peace and on how the world should stand united in combatting the alarming rate of extremism and terror attacks that happen all over the world today. Data pertinent to the research were collected from print and internet sources and later analyzed by using the textual-analysis method. The findings of this research have brought to light that extremism and terrorism cannot be eliminated by simply using brute force and bombing campaigns. Countries embroiled with terror attacks need to study objectively the underlying factors that trigger extremism and terrorism.
IN THIS SUMMARY
In No End to War, Walter Laqueur deals with the new elements in contemporary terrorism, why terrorism came so suddenly, and why it is so often and so thoroughly misinterpreted. Terrorism has changed over time and so have the terrorists, their motives, and the causes of terrorism. During the 1990s, a new factor arose that became the most prominent component of world terrorism: Islamic terrorism, especially from al Qa’ida under Osama bin Laden.
SUBSCRIBE TODAY
http://www.bizsum.com/summaries/no-end-war
The Bush era has seen remarkable change in the US foreign policy. After 9/ 11 attacks, President Bush (the son) initiated the Bush Doctrine and started his war on terror which had such implications as the invasion of Afghanistan in 2011, and the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Abstract: This study examined United States and democratization in Iraq. The study was anchored on the
democratic peace theory as propounded by Immanuel Kant in 1795. The study adopted ex-post research design
while data was gotten from secondary source such as textbooks, journal articles, newspapers, magazines and
internet and the data generated was analyzed through content analysis. The findings of the study showed that The
United States efforts to adoptive democracy was widely implemented by a range of governmental and nongovernmental actors in Iraq, but it has yielded far less than what was promised and United States interest has had
negative effects on democratization in Iraq as the dissolution of the Iraqi army has resulted to security vacuum in
Iraq. Based on the findings the study recommended among others; Democracy should not be seen as a United
States import but rather an indigenous adaptation of general principles by Iraqi people.
Running head HISTORY OF WAR1HISTORY OF WAR5History .docxjeanettehully
Running head: HISTORY OF WAR
1
HISTORY OF WAR
5
History of War
Student’s Name
University
History of Wars
War is a period with armed conflict, like mercenaries, rebels, and armies, among countries, governments, communities, and unofficial militant groups. Utilizing regular and irregular armed forces, this is generally defined by brutal violence, violence, destruction as well as mortality. Warfare relates to activities and features of war styles and wars in particular. Barta (2008) stated that war is warfare that is not confined to solely legitimate targets and, therefore, can lead to huge suffering and deaths of civilians or any other non-combatants. In history, the use of war has acquired control over regions through people, governments, or political groups. The earliest records of ancient warfare belong to Site 117 of a Mesolithic Cemetery that is estimated to be about 14,000 years of age. About 45% of a skeleton showing signs of horrific death there. The fundamental truth of Australian history has always been one people's conquest of a state, as well as one people's enslavement, with merciless destructive nature, of others. The reported impacts of this attack are just as apparent because they are horrible (Barta, 2008). Of the African race who have lived in a world as "Aborigines," "from the start," and have created diverse dialects, cultures or social groups on more than 50,000 years to tribal society, just minority groups survived the first century of contact to white settlers (Veracini, 2011). Therefore, this essay explores how the historical conquest eco in the modern world, French philosopher Montesquieu's statement of an empire founded by war, must maintain itself by war as well as whether the colonial frontier is remembered as genocide and not war (McNiven, 2017).
An example of the modern conquest is the Iraq invasion by the United States of America. Fifteen years earlier, Iraq had been cast into the darkness among the most devastating wars in contemporary history initiated by the US government under George W. Bush (Tuathail, 2003). President Bush reassured Iraqis with his infamous address declaring the beginning of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" that "that day of their freedom was near." However, as a consequence of such military action, rather than being a bastion for freedom and democracy within the country, Iraq was destroyed as millions of Iraqis were exposed to horrors that few of us on this planet had ever encountered or thought. According to the Hinnebusch (2007), the country had experienced ravaged by war as well as converted to wars zone starting from north to south and also from east to west, as competing terrorist groups, foreign forces and political groups compete for leadership at the cost of the Iraqi citizens (Tuathail, 2003). The Iraq invasion had worldwide effects, far from impacting; only Iraqis-which was horrible enough. The absolute failure by the American attempt to promote a system of democracy in Iraq has emp ...
Four years after the invasion of Iraq. Hizb ut-Tahrir report released a report entitled "Iraq: A New Way Forward", which was widely circulated amongst thinkers, academics, journalists, columnists, politicians and think tanks.
The report comprehensively refutes the false justifications for the continued foreign intervention in Iraq - including the need for foreign forces to referee Iraq's sectarian conflict, the idea that more chaos would arise if troops left and the notion that Western governments have the moral authority for nation building. The report also argues that "any discussion of withdrawal from only Iraq will not serve to end the legacy of Western colonialism in the Middle East" because "for the long term stability of the region it is essential that foreign troops withdraw from the entire region, for their meddling has led to almost a century of tyrannical rule, brutal occupation and instability."
The report advocates the withdrawal of all foreign military personnel in Iraq and the wider region, an end to the West's support of dictatorial leaders in the region, allowing the Muslim world to decide its own political destiny without interference, freeing the region's vast energy reserves from the control of monarchies and multinationals, recognition of the illegality of the occupation of Palestine and an end to double standards over nuclear power in the region.
Similar to Liberalist approach to the Iraq War and the War on Terror (8)
Liberalist approach to the Iraq War and the War on Terror
1. Case Study: The Iraq War, 2003 – The Liberalist View
1) Iraq and Humanitarian Intervention
Humanitarian intervention is a quintessential liberal foreign policy; conventional
wisdom holds that it is undertaken by liberal democratic regimes in order to protect
human rights under threat within illiberal states (see ch.30). In this view, state
sovereignty is a moral good only to the extent it provides for distinct political
communities within which individuals may thrive. If the state systematically and
violently abuses the rights of individuals, then sovereignty is forfeited. From a liberal
perspective therefore, the international community may intervene for humanitarian
purposes to stop the abuse in cases such as Bosnia (1995) and Kosovo (1999).
In the case of Iraq, the United States' principal justification for the use of force was to
remove Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction; President Bush
framed it as an act of self-defence. For some self-described liberals, however, the
alleged need to remove weapons of mass destruction were insufficient grounds for
war, and for that reason, some supported the Bush administration's decision on the
grounds that it would liberate Iraq from an abusive despotism. And after the war,
when no weapons were found, the justification has increasingly focused on the right
of the Iraqi citizens to live in freedom from Hussein's tyrannical regime.
Box 2.1: Liberal theorist Robert Keohane on intervention
The distinction between self-defence and humanitarian intervention may become less
clear. Future military action in failed states, or attempts to bolster states that are in
danger of failing, may be more likely to be described both as self-defence and as
humanitarian or public-spirited.
Robert Keohane, 2002, p. 87
Iraq was not a state that could conventionally be considered as 'failing' in that
government structures were strong, if illegitimate. The point to make, rather, is that
since the 1990s it has become increasingly difficult to legitimate the use of force
without some reference to the humanitarian aims of the military campaign.
There are some important objections to the idea that Iraq constituted humanitarian
intervention. As summarized by Human Rights Watch, 'the invasion of Iraq failed to
meet the test…. Most important, the killing in Iraq at the time was not of the
exceptional nature that would justify such intervention. In addition, intervention was
not the last reasonable option to stop Iraqi atrocities. Intervention was not motivated
primarily by humanitarian concerns. It was not conducted in a way that maximized
compliance with international humanitarian law. It was not approved by the Security
Council. And while at the time it was launched it was reasonable to believe that the
Iraqi people would be better off, it was not designed or carried out with the needs of
Iraqis foremost in mind' (Roth, 2004).
Box 2.2: The Liberal Problem
It would be a positive service to democracy if left-wing public intellectuals would take
the lead where elected liberals cannot or will not, urging their fellow Americans that
the war on terrorism requires many things – peace in Israel and Palestine, an end to
the United States' long term addiction to oil – before it requires any regime change in
Iraq. But the left is having some trouble providing that service, because one wing of it
actually supports military intervention in Iraq, while the other wing opposes all military
interventions regardless of their objectives.
Michael Berube, 'Peace Puzzle', p.319-20.
2. 2) Spread of Democracy in the Middle East
Another significant justification used by the Bush administration in the run up to the
war was that - after the invasion - Iraq would act as a new democratic beacon of
hope in the entire Middle East. The example of a 'free' Iraq would accordingly inspire
other peoples of the region to the belief that democracy was not just a Western
invention, but a universal human right. This is a profoundly liberal argument adopted
by the Bush administration.
Box 2.3: Vice President Cheney on freedom in the Middle East
Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region. When
the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will
have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace… Extremists in the
region would have to rethink their strategy of Jihad. Moderates throughout the region
would take heart. And our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process
would enhance.
Richard Cheney, 'The Risks of Inaction,' p.299
Some have argued that, as manifest in the invasion of Iraq, there was an imperial
logic to this liberal notion of spreading democracy in the region.
Box 2.4: Ikenberry on democracy promotion
The new imperial thinkers also incorporate Wilsonian ideas into their vision in urging
the spread of democracy. This is not just idealism… it is good national security policy.
If democracy and the rule of law are established in troubled countries around the
world, they cease being threats… The promotion of democracy is not left to the
indirect, long-term forces of economic forces and political engagement – but, when
necessary, it is purveyed through military force.
G. John Ikenberry, 2004, p. 626
One of the chief branches of contemporary liberal theory is democratic peace theory.
As with liberal theory more broadly, democratic peace theory has a complicated
relationship to the Iraq war. One branch of the theory, which Bruce Russett has
called the cultural or normative explanation, argues that democracies follow
international norms of peaceful conflict resolution and expect fellow democracies to
do the same; this would not, however, pose a problem for the war between the liberal
United States and the illiberal Iraqi regime. The other, termed the structural or
institutional explanation, suggests that features of government in democratic
countries, such as checks and balances between branches of government and public
debate, make democracies less likely to wage war at all. Given that the empirical
correlation for democratic peace is strongest between two democracies and not
between a democracy and a non-democracy, this branch of the theory is generally
considered weaker; in the case of Iraq in 2003, it is also challenged by the apparent
willingness of the United States to go to war.
3) Liberalism, Benign Empire, and Iraq
Traditionally, empire denotes a distinct type of political entity which may or may not
be a state; the Roman Empire was not a state, but the British empire was.
Imperialism, then, is a foreign policy that seeks to sustain a hierarchical relationship
over other peoples and territories for political and economic power. Even before the
Iraq war, writers and commentators had portrayed the United States as the centre of
a new form of empire with a distinctly imperial foreign policy. The main dispute has
been over how to characterise this form of power and whether it should be welcomed
or feared.
3. One important idea has been that the United States operates at the centre of a
distinctly liberal empire, an 'empire of liberty' that is relatively benign. The extension
of US power has rarely fallen into the trap of making imperialism all about the
occupation of territory. This characteristic of US hegemony may have partly resolved
the primary problem of imperial government - how to maintain control over diverse
peoples in diverse territories.
Box 2.5: Historian Niall Ferguson on American empire
No one can deny the extent of the American informal empire… Even recent American
foreign policy recalls the gunboat diplomacy of the British empire in its Victorian
heyday, when a little trouble on the periphery could be dealt with by a short-sharp
"surgical strike."
Niall Ferguson, quoted in Ikenberry, 2004, p. 610
Although the United States was in many senses the traditionally imperial occupier of
Iraq immediately after the invasion, there is now an interim government and planned
elections, which may lead to the phased withdrawal of US troops. The point is that
the United States makes no claim that it seeks to govern Iraq directly for an indefinite
period, but that it wants to establish a liberal democratic system of government so
that direct control is unnecessary.
Is this a good thing? Many liberals argue that it is. Most controversially, Niall
Ferguson, in his recent book Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World, makes
suggestive connections between British and American power - while also telling us
that the British Empire was a 'good thing'. According to Ferguson, Empire was
justified because it moved history in the right direction – the superior system of
"liberal capitalism" was universalised, creating the first global economy. In promoting
contemporary globalization, Ferguson suggests, the United States is carrying on the
global good works that Britain used to do. In this understanding, bringing peace,
'freedom' and free markets to the Middle East is part of the grand historical process. .