After many month of hibernation, finally getting back my north and the south, looking at the beautiful world of geopolitics, full of intrigue and confusion, the world of the new emergent threat ISIS caught my attention. Thus, engulfing in a study concerning this new threat, which bare a linkage to the Great War on Terror few questions as whom are we really fighting? What the war really doing and did we the U.S. pave the way for ISIS the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and what is the path to be taken in securing these treats needs be scrutinized.
Thus observing the white elephant from all paradigms, an answer can be found in a statement made by the Deputy Director, External Relation for ...view middle of the document...
Same time in observing a nongovernmental based definition of terrorism Webster’s dictionary describe it as “The state of being terrorized or the act of terrorizing; the use of intimidation to attain one’s goal or achieve one’s cause” (Websters 1997, 308). Both definitions being parallel emphasize the utilization of coerciveness in achieving once goal or cause, thus who decides the limitation of the oppression to blame another or take action, the oppressor, oppressed or a bystander who assumes to know better.
Which leave the question of whom are we really fighting? To be defined as an infinite enemy who ever that poses an opposite view than the followers of the Bush doctrines, and the western views, According to President Bush in his speech on terrorism (2006), “The terrorists who declared war on America represent no nation. They defend no territory. And they wear no uniform. They do not mass armies on borders or flotillas of warships on the high seas. They operate in the shadows of society. They send small teams of operatives to infiltrate free nations. They live quietly among their victims. They conspire in secret. They operate in the shadows of society” (Bush 2006, n.p). Same time in addressing the national security strategy in 2002 President Bush clarified the enemy by stating that any nation which provide aid or safe haven for terrorism, falls as an enemy to the US and ended by stating that “Either you with us or your with the terrorists”. Which again establish the theory put forth by Vilho Harle and Sami Moisio that it’s only the US and its allies who decide this enemy.
President Bush according to Richard Jackson (2005);
We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime” (Jackson 2005, 194).
The described enemy being so vague present an infinite amount of people or organization, which the united stated, and its allies perceive as dangers or enemies leaving an open-ended declaration of war on multiple entities. The reason being are the definition and the utilization of terrorism also drawing another element to consideration that is the slogan as elaborated by William J Crotty (2004), “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” (Crotty 2004, 5). The deployment of troops to Iraq as the execution of the bush doctoring and the national security strategies of 2002 where a war was declared on an undefined enemy and for an undefined cause presented a fertile grounds for retaliation based on the accused. Soon following its implementation, the US policy makers following the Bush doctrines maintained continual pressure on nations, which the US described as the Axis of Evil that included the nations of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea and their allies by naming and...