Iraq 2003: War Terrorism, Foreign Invasion, and Jihad

Introduction

No doubt that any country is supposed to protect its assets and economic interest to develop the country. Also in combating with the social events, every country uses strategy and different tools of mitigation. U.S being one of the developed countries makes a stand out in every political move it takes from time to time. The political and official moves a government takes may not result successful or efficient if they look from the other perspective. One such age old critical issue is the anti terrorist activities between the countries. The protective measures of one country may prove aggressive actions to another influenced country. Sometimes Power plays tries to emerge in a gigantic mode of destruction. Public and civilians cannot be separated from the terrorists at all times of execution of anti terrorist functionalities. However, the motives and interests of the execution force need to be carefully evaluated before commenting on the outcome of such political strategies.

We will write a custom Iraq 2003: War Terrorism, Foreign Invasion, and Jihad specifically for you
for only $14.00 $11,90/page
308 certified writers online
Learn More

During the recent years, U. S has lost its image in the world scenario as a peace maker. During the time of President Bush, the world became spectator of much anti terrorist activity carried on by U.S. Some argue that it is not the anti-Americanism that spoiled the image of U.S, nor the terrorist leaders of Muslim countries like Saddam Hussein or the Al Qaeda, but it is the government policies and moves taken by the diminishing democratic values. The criticism is on the daring steps taken to combat the terrorism without neglecting the overall destruction caused to the overall world economy. The War on Terrorism sometimes can be confused with War with Violence by the international operators.

The government’s former anti-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke states that “The pool of people who really hate us is so much greater than it was on 9/11 because of this needless and counterproductive war in Iraq”. This statement from the official body itself signifies the presence of blur over the proclaimed facts

Facts

Charles Burress cites the statement of Clark about the U.S. action against terrorism as “We’re not engaged in a war on terrorism, a war against a tactic,” he said. Clark is under the opinion that though there are many Terrorist groups around the country, Government is concerned with only few terrorist groups to fight aggressively. So let us see how U.S. government is particular about only some groups in the below sections.

War with Iraq

There is a substantial evidence for the controversy on the war of U.S with Iraq. More than National Security, a strong desire for Oil is the motivation for the America’s interest in war with Iraq. Many studies question the honesty of U.S reasons for declaring war on Iraq.

With an official reason to improve western access to Iraqi oil, Bush government declared war on Iraq in April 2001. “The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity,” Bush said October 6 at a meeting of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). “And we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror.” This illustrates the paradigm shift of concentration of war from terrorists to Iraq. This was all done prior to the September 11 terrorist attack.

Reports say that, President Bush’s Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that ‘Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East’ and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US ‘military intervention’ is necessary”,(The Debate).

Get your
100% original paper on any topic done
in as little as 3 hours
Learn More

Also the other reasons behind the War can include the Inspection of UN on weapons, Iraqi human rights, weapons of mass destruction, etc., However the war is only benefited to U.S oil traders who support the political agendas of Bush government financial with their accumulated wealth. The increased profits with this war are 50% to $4.09bn (£2.5bn), crossing the analyst expectations.

Cheney on War for Oil

Texas based oil services company Halliburton, was formerly run by US Vice-President Dick Cheney. Haliburton has a long time association in doing government contracts and is the highest beneficiary of the war on Iraq. Mr Cheney through his oil investments is suspected to receive a huge financial benefit.

Iraq being the second largest source of oil in the world during the time, but with many unexplored oil fields in the country became point of attraction for oil exploitation by the developed country like U.S. After the Iraqi war, when US oil corporations have fully developed the oil industry’s potential, Iraq is expected to produce up to eight million barrels a day within a few years. This could beat the oil competitor Saudi Arabia which was in a leading position in oil Supply. U.S dose not want o have the monopoly of the Saudi in oil business. So U.S. allowed the investors to exploit the benefits of the greatest supply of oil and attracted high investments with a promise of high benefits to shower on the early investors. According to the reports of Wall Street Journal the oil contracts of U.S with Iraqi consign could be worth as much as $900m, (the debate).

Iraq war – power play

Though America claims that the War on Iraq is an anti terrorist act accusing Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction, there is a power play involved in it. Also U.S government tried to make the world believe that it is a peace maker when it proclaimed that stating that Saddam Hussein must be disarmed. But when the US Defence Secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, made an undisclosed contract with Iraq to provide biological and chemical arms, the sincerity of U.S again became suspicious.

Donald H. Rumsfeld attended a undisclosed meeting with Saddam Hussein in Iraq on behalf of the US government in December 1983, and agreed to sell Iraq weapons of mass destruction and agreed a finance Saddam Hussein to buy them. US not only allowed the Iraq to use the weapons of mass destruction against its neighbors but actively supported it.

America’s Position in the War realm

The true purpose of disarming the Iraq with the war has become invalid after knowing the facts. It is evident that the US government supported the terrorist attacks by funding them in an indirect way or eels it can be said that the U.S. funded agencies turned to produced the dangerous and renowned terrorists like Osama Bin Laden. It is not a secret that at one point of time the Government called them as “resistance fighter”. According to the Times report of August 24, 1998, Bin Laden and his associates were given the best training, provided with sufficient facilities and weapons, and surplus money for being the CIA employees. It is reported that U.S. gave these cruel terrorists more than $6 billions of money in 1980s.

In 1979 became the spectator of “the largest covert operation in the history of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)”. In order to mitigate the problems of Soviet invasion of Afghanistan this was launched.

We will write a custom
Iraq 2003: War Terrorism, Foreign Invasion, and Jihad
specifically for you!
Get your first paper with 15% OFF
Learn More

“With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI [Inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan’s fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad”.1

During 1985-87, United States has supported funding from the finances generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade and helped this Islamic “jihad” to do favor to the Saudi Arabia.

In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166,…[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies — a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987,… as well as a “ceaseless stream” of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan’s ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels.”2

However, during the weapon investigation of UN, even before UN Security Council members were allowed to see the U.S weapon declaration, the government has removed 8,500 pages from the total of 12,000 pages of declaration. What such activities hint about the sincerity of war on Terrorism.

The norm that “Arabs and/or Muslims are responsible for the attacks of September 11th turned false in the light of facts. Most of the victims suffered from the attacks in the disaster are the people from 63 nations including Arabs and Muslims, which is higher than the anti-Arab and Muslim violence in the U.S. The missing case records in U.S include 200 Pakistanis alone. The post September 11th missing records are from 500 Arab and/or Muslim nations ­ which is equal to the number as those missing from the United Kingdom

Fanaticism

There is an angel of fanaticism involved in evaluating the issue of “War on Terrorism”. It is argued that Islam is more prone to fanaticism than other rabid cultures like Christianity, Judaism. Fanatic societies express an excessive and irrational zeal for a religious or political cause. Stating on the 11th September event in an “Open Letter to America,” Troy Newman expressed the grief that “Today the LORD has visited our land in judgment” and the “blood of over 44,000,000 pre-born children” brought about the destruction. But who nourished such activities? Why does government support such activities? It seems that government has misused the policies for its own benefit. Proclamation on War on Terrorism is not just enough to make peace and confidence levels in public. It goes beyond to create trust.

According to Lee Sustar, calls the U.S. ‘war on terror’ as an “ideological justification for the aggressive projection of U.S. imperial power” and “a means of providing a cover to this reality”.

Not sure if you can write
Iraq 2003: War Terrorism, Foreign Invasion, and Jihad by yourself?
We can help you
for only $14.00 $11,90/page
Learn More

The motive behind replacing government in Afghanistan could be economic benefits for U.S. rather than mere attack on terrorism. The Bush government with a desire to increase the oil supplies wanted to have a hold in Afghanistan.

In 1998, America wanted to have a new Pipeline and when it felt difficult, wanted to invade the government itself. This is all happened three years before the attacks on 11 September 2001.

U.S. Government’s interest towards west-friendly government has begun long before the War on Terror that followed September 11th which is evident through the following abstract from U.S. House of Reps.

“The U.S. Government’s position is that we support multiple pipelines. The Unocal pipeline is among those pipelines that would receive our support under that policy. I would caution that while we do support the project, the U.S. Government has not at this point recognized any governing regime of the transit country, one of the transit countries, Afghanistan, through which that pipeline would be routed. But we do support the project.” (U.S. House of Reps)

The U.S. interest in the Central Asian Republics published on February 12, 1998 states that “the only other possible route (for the desired oil pipeline) is across. Afghanistan which has of course its own unique challenges.”

Also news reported by U.S. interest in the Central Asian Republics published on February 12, 1998 confirms the lack of alternative to U.S. in pursuing its goal and states that “CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan Government is in place.”

The Afghanistan oil pipeline was constructed, as an outcome of U.S. invasion of the Afghanistan. So it is clear that the conquest of Afghanistan is not a War on Terrorism but is a war aimed for power play and oil. The reports say that U.S. started attacking the Afghanistan, long before the TWO collapse and the schema to conquer Afghanistan is in the plan of 12 February 1998. Also there is an opinion that 9/11 happened just in time to secure public support for the attacks.

1998 – attacks stop US oil pipeline

In August 1998, during the invasion, nearly 80 cruise missiles were fired at Afghanistan and Sudan by U.S. government. And also America stopped funding the training project in Afghanistan which led its closure.

The gas pipeline construction from Turkmenistan to Pakistan

The programme was funded by the American oil company, Unocal, which was also stopped in November 1998.

In January 1998, US began to hit the targets of Afghanistan camps.

During 2001, as result of the formation of anti- Taliban Coalition with Russia, India, Iran and USA, Afghanistan was invaded by the allies. By September 2001, the allies deployed a HMS Illustrious task –force to create friction in Afghanistan. 24 surface ships from Britain, 2 nuclear submarines, are expected to participate in the 13,000 mile round trip. The total operation costs around £100m.

But on, 11th September 2001 – America became predator for its own actions of aggressive war actions. But the response to WTO disaster began before 9/11.

The anti terrorist activities of the U.S. also influenced the bilateral relations of U.S. with many other Muslim countries.

Aramco—the Arabian American Oil Company was formed to supply oil in commercial quantities from 1938. Oil exporting was started for the year 1939.

Such narrow relationship became wide through the exchange of technical experts, traders, students and tourists. However during this time America has to work on excluding the other foreign national powers such as British upon the oil resources of Kingdom.

But when President Bill Clinton came into administration in January 1993, the priority to the Saudi-American relations was declined. Arab-Israeli peacemaking became the major agenda of the government rather than the earlier terrorist issues.

The bilateral relations between Saudi and U.S. government were highly disturbed in regard to the Arab-Israeli conflicts in 1948, 1967, and 1973. The dual containment policy by the U.S. President Bill Clinton is also observed by U.S. military personnel in side the Kingdom. The two terrorist bombings that took place in Riyadh in 1995 and Dhahran in 1996 had killed 24 of U.S. military persons and injured several others that still destabilized the trust between the countries.

However during the Gulf War in 1990-1991, Saudi invited the US intervention to oppose the Saddam’s effect on the country. During the Gulf war, Saddam’s attitudes with other Arab countries made them to take the support of the big nations. The King Fahd of Saudi Arabia recognized in the dire situation of the country during this period immediately requested aid from President Bush of United States. Without failing U.S has proved it commitment to the Saudi relation by implementing air forces and Navy ships to Saudi territory. Under the Operation called “Desert Shield” U.S deployed 40,000 troops to Saudi Arabia on August 8 1990. The true intention behind such help is not just because of the interest to eradicate terrorism, but includes the political and economic interests of America. When Saudi signed Trade Investment Framework agreement with U.S in July 2003 and when it joined in WTO in December 2005, the relations strengthened further.

Diplomatic relations between Arab countries and U.S. Relations, 1931-1991

The diplomatic relations of Saudi-U.S. political were formed by the influence of technological, political, military, and commercial interests and understandings developed during and following the Second World War. King Abd Al Aziz was recognized as ruler of Hejaz and Nejd in 1931. But only after 1942, through a resident diplomatic representative of U.S in Saudi, the relations between United States began to propagate its roots. The U.S.-Saudi relations from early 1930s through 1945, were confined to the oil exploration indulgence with the California Arabian Standard Oil Company [CASOC, which further developed as today’s Aramco. When CASOC’s discovered another oil reserve in 1938 in eastern Saudi, there aroused a need for establishing bilateral relations between Saudi and U.S to manage and to defend the oil production with the indulgence of private and public U.S. efforts.

By this period, Saudi with the help of U.S. has come out of the external economical and political influence of United Kingdom. The meeting between President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and King Abd al Aziz on February 14, 1945 is considered as the noteworthy start up for the U.S. Saudi relations by many observers. U.S. Political agenda here is gaining Power over UK to include the ‘Oil Producer’ with it.

Through bilateral military cooperation during the mid 1940, U.S. has offered military at Dhahran and also extended support for planning and training assistance. This has further strengthened the relations.

The bilateral commercial and economic relations during this period involve the oil exports, Aramco operations and oil exports, U.S. contractors helping in developing the Kingdom infrastructure and U.S. Consultation in establishing the Saudi financial system.

There were establishment of common national security objectives between Saudi Arabia and the United States from the 1950s onward. Though these objectives tried to over come some regional issues, they were severely tested between conflicts in 1948, 1967, and 1973 concerning Arab-Israeli conflicts.

The administrations of U.S presidents like Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon kept a note that Saudi kingdom to make a friendly relation with other nationalist and socialist governments in the region.

However, the Arab- Israeli war in 1973 put the U.S. Saudi relations in strain and affected the political and economic dynamics of the relationship. When U.S. supported Israel during the war, Saudi responded by instituting a restriction on oil production and oil exports. This instance produced inflation in the U.S. which in turn created speculation in the U.S. foreign investment. The U.S. military seized the oil fields in the Arab countries including Saudi Arabia. In order to regain the economic stability, both Saudi and U.S. started working out on the maintenance of bilateral relations. This is a clear representation of US Power play for Oil again.

This realm of second phase of agreements on bilateral relations were based on shared opposition to Communism, renewed military cooperation, U.S. securities, industrial expansion and recycling of Saudi petrodollars to the United States via Saudi investment in infrastructure. Saudi supported anticommunist causes around the world during the Carter and Reagan Administrations. Also during 1979, the Iranian revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan aided the constant collaboration of U.S. and Saudi for a decade. Both shared policies to support the activities like – anti-Soviet mujahidin fighters and the war against Saddam Hussein were developed during the period. Also during the Persian Gulf war in 1991, Saudi hosted U.S military troops and military equipment to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. However, such support and military relations were cited as reasons to provoke the Saudi opposition figures and extremists, like Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, and led them to attack U.S. and other parts of the world including Saudi Arabia.

1991-2001

During this period, When the Saudi resident U.S military supported the Clinton’s administration policy of “Dual Containment”, 24 of them were killed and hundreds of them were injured the terrorist bombings taken place in Riyadh in 1995 and Dhahran in 1996.

Also within this period, Saudi political activities like the fiscal policy, foreign policy and the constitutional government became prone to local debate. And the Post war conditions of 1991 Gulf War made the citizens appeal the King Fahd for reformation. This can be understood that Public sough to analyze the fate of the nation if it remains in the clutches of America. Though the U.S.-Saudi relations were strong in the areas like defense cooperation, the political relations became week after the 9/11 terrorist attack.

Oil and Euro

In the light of the occurring financial crisis new sets of reasons could be defined as being influential in the US intrusion in Iraq and taking the position in the time line before the 2001 attack. A few of the most powerful reasons is the petroleum, the dollar and the American economy. In October, 2000 of euro has reached the lowest point,” The euro was created at the value of $ 1.17 on 1 January 1999, depreciated to a low of $ 0.82 in October 2000.” 3 At this particular time Saddam Hussein has made a decision to convert all the foreign currency reserves of Iraq from dollars to euro – a step which many have apprehended as one more symptom of political madness of the Iraqi leader, and at the same time a move that “is worth the price because it allows him to draw a clear line between what Iraq sees as two camps in world opinion regarding the UN sanctions.” 4 However since 1st of January, 2002 the new European currency – already in the form of coins and bank notes – has begun the victorious procession: at first across Europe, then all over the world. One by one central banks of countries with the most different economic situation (China, Canada, Iran, and Russia) began to follow the lead of Saddam and to convert if not everything, but an essential part of the foreign currency reserves from dollars to euro. “According to UPI, Iran, the 2nd largest oil producer in OPEC after Saudi Arabia, has declared that it intends to start selling oil valued in Euros in March 2006. Venezuela has announced that it is willing to barter oil in exchange for machinery and cattle in order to offset a portion of their oil reserve conversion to into dollars.”5

One of the first attempts to be pulled out from a vicious circle of petroleum dollars was undertaken by Hugo Chavez who has come to power in Venezuela. Under his management, Venezuela – the largest manufacturer of oil in the western hemisphere – along with closing the most favored-nation status to the American oil corporations also has refused to sell for dollars, having preferred barter transactions. Actually, Venezuela began not to sell oil, rather than buy goods for “oil”. “Venezuela has announced that it is willing to barter oil in exchange for machinery and cattle in order to offset a portion of their oil reserve conversion to into dollars.” 6

Then the turn of Iraq has come again. In November, 2000 Saddam Hussein has demanded, that all calculations for the Iraq oil delivered within the limits of the United Nations “Oil for food” program, were made exclusively in euro. The USA, certainly, have sharply opposed it. After that Saddam has threatened to stop the general deliveries of the Iraq oil to the world market. And the United Nations have been compelled to surrender. After almost a year, another member of the OPEC- Iran has declared that it seriously considers the possibility to make all the calculations for oil exclusively in euro. The European Union and Russia also have started to carry on secret negotiations about the same scheme from petrodollars to petroeuro, where “Since the war, the European Union has been actively encouraging Russia, another opponent of the US invasion, to move to euro oil and gas sales.”7

And, at last, in the OPEC began to speak about gradual transition of calculations on the basis of euro – as the American dollar steadily falls, the American economy is living far from the best days, and the presence of the American armies at Persian Gulf causes all big discontent from the Arabian population- member countries of the OPEC. Having lost the oil component, the dollar can simply fail – and in that case a panic wave, having swept on all world stock exchanges like a tsunami, will shake the entire world not worse than a nuclear bomb.

Simultaneously the dependence of US on foreign oil grows from year to year. Due to the rigid foreign policy applied by the United States (in particular, the unconditional support of Israel) contracts on workings out new large oil deposits in the Arabian Gulf countries started to involve French, Chinese and Russian oil corporations, where in the case of Iraq “For instance, two Russian companies, Zarubeshneft and Rosneft, told journalists in 2002 that that they were preparing to develop Iraq’s Nahr Umr field that they estimated was worth about $570 billion.”8 This fact leaves the US with the only ally in the face of Saudi Arabia. From this point of view, strangely enough, the intrusion of the USA into Iraq looks quite a logical step – at least, in short-term economic prospect. The former oil contracts concluded by Saddam Hussein’s regime, are to be cancelled, working out the oil deposits is incurred by the American oil companies which list is already would be known. In that context the consequent actions would explain the war as simultaneously other leading American corporations charge billion contracts on restoration of Iraq which has suffered from the American bombardments. The new political regime in Bagdad would certainly begin to carry out a pro-American policy in the OPEC. The factor of the euro-dollar switch of power is a vital argument in the US foreign policy and as stated by Ron Paul before the US House of Representatives, “The military might we enjoy becomes the “backing” of our currency. There are no other countries that can challenge our military superiority, and therefore they have little choice but to accept the dollars we declare are today’s “gold.” This is why countries that challenge the system – like Iraq, Iran and Venezuela – become targets of our plans for regime change.”9

After 2001 attack

With September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on U.S, Saudi became vulnerable to much criticism for its negligence on the shared objectives on security in acting against terrorist groups, which is evident by the direct participation of 15 Saudi nationals in the attack. The critics on such attempt of Saudi raised different concerns and opinions from the observers. Saudi government officials were criticized for their negligence and design of the responsibility in preventing the attack. According to some others, it is on Saudi policy decisions which facilitated the religious extremism and international terrorism as Zihad. The final report of 9/11 Commission released on July 23, 2004, criticized the fund raising activities involved with charities who are sponsored by the Saudi Government. The 2003 attacks by the Al Qaeda again raised concern about the affectivity of the anti terrorism attacks of U.S. government.

Though U.S. complains September 11th is like the Japanese Pearl Harbor attack, everyone knows that the scale of operation cannot be related with the Japanese attack. In the case of Pearl Harbor, it was an attack from a country in an ongoing war, unlike the 11th September attack which was from a single group. Also the U.S. government went into the World War II, after a yearlong public Great Debate. An existing criticism that US going instantly into war has no meaningful goal either national or international.

Jim Lobe comments the following statements on the version of U.S. regarding War on Terrorism.

On U.S. Foreign Policy: There were parties throughout the history that had a difficult coexistence, the democratic humanism and intolerant Puritanism. While things went tolerably well, there was a tendency that things will be manageable. This state of mind has the ability to change in case when a particular leader, opinion or event awakened the people into a high emotion state, forcing them to look “at the world through the distorting prism of a harsh and angry moralism” (Jim Lobe)

On War Fever: When the atmosphere of war is in control, the history has shown that there is a little chance that reason would prevail. In an example of a hawk and a dove it could be said that “size matters”, as there is no criterion of comparisons such as good and better, rather than who is bigger, more lethal and has the will to use the previous. (Jim Lobe)

On False Historical Analogies: There is an advantage of free discussion especially to policy-makers, as it brings new ideas replacing old myths with new realities. Americans especially unique in their habit of policy-making by analogy where “North Vietnam’s involvement in South Vietnam, for example, is equated with Hitler’s invasion of Poland and a parley with the Viet Cong would represent ‘another Munich.” Instead of using new ideas, slight resemblance with a particular event stating that the history repeats itself is a misuse of this history.

On the Responsibility of Congress: The congress has the responsibility of the consequent actions to the decisions they made. For example Senators who accepted the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, would have not done so if they predicted the later interpretation of this resolution as a Congressional approval of a major war in Asia. “I, as one Senator, am unwilling to acquiesce, actively or tacitly, to a policy that I judge to be unwise as the price of putting the best possible face on that policy. To do so would be to surrender the limited ability I have to bring influence to bear for what I would judge to be a wiser policy and would constitute a default on my constitutional responsibilities and on my responsibilities to the people of my state.” (Jim Lobe)

On the Arrogance of Power: There is confusion between power and virtue with great nations being specifically susceptible to that confusion having the power and taking it as a special responsibility for other nations. Making other nations richer, happier and wiser in the context of power and virtue can be taken for omnipotence where a great nation can assume that “it has the means as well as the duty to do God’s work” (Jim Lobe)

US always claimed that it historically in fight with Bin Laden and Taliban. But the National Security Decision Directive 166 signed by President Ronald Reagan on March 1985 contradicts with the assumption.

The National Security Decision Directive 166 signed by President Ronald Reagan signed on March 1985 authorizes money laundering from the “Golden Crescent” drug trade to provide “stepped-up covert military aid”. This has dramatically increased the arms supplies with a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987″. Also it promoted the funds to flow to Pakistan, which further helped Pakistan to raise arms for Afghan mujaheddin rebels; which in turn produced the terrorists like Bin Laden who waged war against the current world and also against the former Soviet Union. Along with arms and expertise, the U.S. directive supplied thousands of Korans and extremist-nationalist tracts.

The major countries proclaim that the prolonged war effort is good for the economy; they in other terms forget the negative effects of the war in the long run. In the global scenario of operations, counties need to build trust among the civilians and corporate. The tendency towards the service oriented practices demand much bilateral and healthy relations for the world trade benefits. The countries loose benefits like economical, social, technical etc., on both the side when the war is at hand.

When the U.S. government tries to make the people believe that the U.S. War on terrorism is a war between civilization and psychopathic barbarians, the assumption turns false in the light of truth. Civilization itself facilitated the entrance of the major terrorist attacks that are been done by Osama Bin Ladens and Saddam Hussein in the world. According to the observation of historian Richard L. Rubinstein, the Nazi Holocaust “bears witness to the advance of civilization.”(Richard L. Rubinstein). The New England Journal of Medicine reports the death of over 500,000 Iraqi children due to the imposition of United Nations sanctions. When the so called Civilization of U.S. government and its disastrous activities with their funding continue to erode the power from other nations, the terrorists like Bin Laden, Hussein will gain easy access to weapons of mass destruction.

Peter Bergen, a terrorism specialist in New York stated that ”The president Bush is right that Iraq is a main front in the war on terrorism, but this is a front we created,”(Peter Bergen). The terrorism specialists at nonpartisan New America Foundation, Washington report that a part of the recent suicide bombers and the chaos creating terrorists are none other than the part of the new generation terrorists who were not in the group of earlier Islamic extremists. And the motive of the new generation terrorists is to protect their fellow Muslims from U.S. attacks in the Iraqi land.

The assumed foreign fighters like Saud Bin Muhammad Bin Saud Al-Fuhaid, who blew himself up March 24, is a new entrant to Iraq three days before his death from Syria. The newspaper published interviews with his family reported that, Fuhaid is supposed to traveled back to Syria as informed to his family that he would be coming home.

But the investigation into the case observed that some of his friends who are already involved in Jihad influenced him during his stay in Afghan and made him as martyr. After this he called up his parents and informed them that he is not going to come back to home and is getting involved in Jihad like his friends.

The post war violence in Iraq reported that nearly 1,400 people were killed in the 500 car bombings and suicidal attacks, (Associated Press).

But in spite of such violence created in Iraq, Bush is stubborn in his attitude towards the War, He supports his activities in Iraq as the act against ”the world’s terrorists” as they have chosen to make their stand in Iraq.

In July 2005, Bush in a radio message asserts, that ”Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world’s terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror”.( Bryan Bender)

Mark Mazzetti, notifies that “a stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks”, (Mark Mazzetti).

Obaid reports that most of the new generation terrorists are in the age group 20 to 30, most of them have families and have no early connections with Jihad philosophy of Al Qaeda before Sept. 11th but are influenced by the terror visualized on internet and through Television.

Another Director of Search for International Terrorist Entities Institute in Washington, Rita Katz who is also an Iraq native states that ”These are people who did not get training in Pakistan or Chechnya, [and they] ended up going to Iraq because they considered defending Iraq a must for every Muslim to go and fight”, (Rita Katz).

Though U.S. Proclaims that Iraq has became central front to the terrorism, the prominent voice like, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense Questions on the validity, “We don’t know. The world doesn’t know. There are not good metrics to determine how many people are being trained in a radical madrasa school in some country”, (Donald Rumsfeld).

United States Information Agency USIA which is formed to carry out America’s public diplomacy, or explaining and advancing U.S. foreign policy and building good relations for the United States with people abroad. But due to the political deal made in 1999, the agency had to keep silence on certain affairs of the country.

The norm that US motivated by desire to combat terrorism can be uncovered with the facts like, “U.N. Resolution E/CN.4/1998/L.7, which condemns “all acts” of terrorism sponsored by both Palestinians and Israelis (UN Human rights)”.

The reluctance towards peace making by the US government has reduced the funding for key programs, suffered substantial staff reductions, and experienced critical retirements.

After this, U.S. government could not help to develop a comprehensive strategy for rebuilding American public diplomacy.

The major contribution of jihadists activity was from Afghanistan and Iraq 80% of attacks and 67 % deaths since the invasion of Iraq.

The Post war investigations on the motivations and the background of Iraqi fighters revealed that the most of the fighters are neither transferred nor were former terrorists, but are the converted people none other than the radicalized terrorists by the war itself.

Bush claims that, most of the terrorists used the Iraqi land as “central front” to fight against U.S. forces.

Bush expressed that ”The terrorists know that the outcome [in Iraq] will leave them emboldened or defeated”, and hence “they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction.”(Liza Sabater)

An Israeli analysis reported that, ”the vast majority of [non-Iraqi] Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq”. According to the report of Global Research in International Affairs Center in Herzliya, Israel, out of 154 fighters under terrorism analysis, only few were with past terrorist history.

References

  1. Colonel David A. Wallace, U.S. Army, Battling Terrorism under the Law of War.
  2. Gunter Grass, The U.S. Betrays Its Core Values.
  3. The logic of empire George Monbiot, The US is now a threat to the rest of the world. The sensible response is non-cooperation.
  4. Liza Sabater, Another terrorist attack in London. Is this what Self-Service Jihad all about?
  5. Robert Scheer, Bush Is Serving Up the Cold War Warmed Over.
  6. Eqbal Ahmad, Terrorism: Theirs and Ours, Web.
  7. John Pilger, Hidden Agenda Behind War on Terror.
  8. Michael Meacher, This war on terrorism is bogus: The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination.
  9. John Pilger, Why Bush lies about Iraq.
  10. Jim Lobe, The Arrogance of Power.
  11. Gary Younge, Lots of wars on terror, The Bush doctrine is now a template for conflicts worldwide: to every action a disproportionate response.
  12. Kevin Phillips, How the GOP Became God’s Own Party.
  13. Phyllis Bennis, A Declaration Of War, Web.
  14. David Krieger, Looking Back on September 11th.
  15. John Pilger, Hidden Agenda Behind War on Terror.
  16. Agence France Presse, US Intellectuals Call for European Criticism of US War on Terror.
  17. Michel Chossudovsky, Who Is Osama Bin Laden? Web.
  18. NUNAN, C. (2004) Petrodollar or Petroeuro? A new source of global conflict. Growth: The Celtic Cancer. Feasta Review. Web.
  19. LEE SUSTAR, The Left and a Softer, Gentler War? Available at:
  20. What the “War on Terror” is Really About.
  21. PAUL, J. A. (2002) Oil in Iraq: the heart of the Crisis. Global Policy Forum. Web.
  22. PAUL, R. (2006) The End of Dollar Hegemony. LewRockwell.
  23. Peter Bergen, The Iraq Effect, The War in Iraq and its Impact on the War on Terrorism.
  24. PRAKASH, R. (2006) Euros, Oil and The Almighty Dollar. Options Trading Lessons.
  25. RECKNAGEL, C. (2000) Baghdad Moves to Euro. Global Policy Forum. Web.
  26. SALVATORE, D. (2005) The euro-dollar exchange rate defies prediction. Journal of Policy Modeling, 27, 455-464.
  27. Anup Shah, War on Terror, Web.
  28. Charles Burress, War against terror is a failure, ex-White House official says Richard Clarke tells Berkeley audience U.S. still isn’t safe.

Footnotes

  1. Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban: Exporting Extremism, Foreign Affairs, 1999
  2. Steve Coll, Washington Post, 1992.
  3. SALVATORE, D. (2005) The euro-dollar exchange rate defies prediction. Journal of Policy Modeling, 27, p.458
  4. RECKNAGEL, C. (2000) Baghdad Moves to Euro. Global Policy Forum.
  5. PRAKASH, R. (2006) Euros, Oil and The Almighty Dollar. Options Trading Lessons.
  6. PRAKASH, R. (2006) Euros, Oil and The Almighty Dollar. Options Trading Lessons.
  7. NUNAN, C. (2004) Petrodollar or Petroeuro? A new source of global conflict. Growth: The Celtic Cancer. Feasta Review.
  8.  PAUL, J. A. (2002) Oil in Iraq: the heart of the Crisis. Global Policy Forum.
  9. PAUL, R. (2006) The End of Dollar Hegemony. LewRockwell.
Check the price of your paper