In The Shadows: The Nature of the Elusive War on Terror
A concept not very well understood in the U.S. and many places due to its shadowy nature is the War on Terror. In the early stages of its conception, Vice President Dick Cheney said in an interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press, that U.S. Intelligence agencies would indeed “spend time in the shadows” as it relates to Al-Qaeda and the war on terror. Russert preceded that comment with a joke that they were conducting the interview in the “shadows of Camp David.” However elusive the understanding of the war on terror may be, it is well understood to be problematic by people the world over, but most certainly in the many countries where the war is being waged. For nearly two decades, the U.S. and its allies have tried to confront terrorists and bring the fight to them. The U.S. has committed vast amounts of resources and political will towards the issue, with very few gains to show for it. In fact, it can be argued that through our policies related to the war on terror, we have created more terrorists in the process and have also caused a build-up in world tensions that could have catastrophic effects.
The war on terror is one of the most significant problems of this century. It continues to be a major problem after 17 years of fighting because it is draining precious resources during a very precarious economic period, encouraging an environment that breeds corruption, and causing mental and physical harm to countless people for an agenda that is quite frankly unclear and for a war with no end in sight. A vibrant anti-war movement would have pushed back against the prospects of endless conflict, and perhaps would have prevented many of the abuses and unintended consequences that resulted from our policies. However, formidable opposition to this war has effectively been curbed by fears of being labeled as unpatriotic. Although a resolution is sorely needed, the current situation makes it highly unlikely to occur without a total reshaping of our policies as well as our basic understanding of the problem.
The events that put the war on terror into motion, just like the war itself, are not widely understood by the public. Ideas surrounding the issue vary widely and the secretive nature of the issue even leads many to entertain conspiracy theories about the matter. It was in the aftermath of the attacks on September 11, 2001 that we first came to realize the idea of a war on terror, but according to some its roots extend years before that fateful day. First, the organization held responsible for the September 11 attacks, Al-Qaeda, was not even really an organization. During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980’s, the CIA directed financial, material and logistical support to Islamic jihadists in the region. The CIA trained members of the Mujahideen to counter the Soviet threat, including Osama Bin Laden. It was these specific fighters, trained by the CIA, that made up a database of individuals known as Al-Qaeda. This group would eventually disband from its American handlers and become a sworn enemy to the United States, committing numerous acts of terror against the west. Fast forward to over a decade later, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a conservative think-tank organized in 1997 that sought to influence the United States’ foreign policy objectives and assert its military dominance abroad. It was made up of former Reagan and Bush Sr. officials who retained the lessons learned from the end of the cold-war period. In a report, written in September of 2000, the group created a blueprint for American objectives in the new age of global dominance. It recommended regime change in Iraq as a central component of its plan, as well as an increase in arms and defense spending and a resurgence of Reagan’s “Star Wars” program. The group saw a need for a substantial American force presence in the gulf region for various geopolitical reasons and viewed the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s regime as an important step to achieving that goal. Along with having such lofty goals, the group admitted that the likelihood of their plan coming to shape was unlikely without a “catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.” The attacks on September 11th provided the opportunity needed to put their plan into motion, and with the majority of the PNAC members in key positions within the Bush administration at the time they would have confidence that the plan would succeed.
While it was readily understood that Osama Bin Laden was likely responsible for the attacks, and military operations would immediately go underway to capture the renowned terrorist, a massive misinformation campaign was put in motion to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein was somehow connected to the terrorists that attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.
It would be revealed later that the Bush administration had plans to topple Saddam’s regime from its very early days in power. In response to the terrorist attacks, the Bush administration sought sweeping reforms that would address the inadequacies that allowed the attacks to occur and also sought measures that would transform Presidential powers and help to usher in the current surveillance programs that test our nations laws related to civil liberties. The policies implemented by the Administration would also see foreign suspects kidnapped and tortured in a secretive CIA program known as extraordinary rendition. In an effort to limit American casualties in the war on terror, a robust drone program emerged that is responsible for countless casualties of innocent civilians. The United States currently has counter-terrorism efforts taking place in 76 countries around the world and at least 6 countries where drone strikes on suspected terror networks are the norm. The ever-expanding nature of the war on terror is evident in many ways, and over the years this expansion has had a draining effect on this nation’s precious resources.
Social welfare and educational programs have been weathering funding cuts for years, however ever since the inception of the war on terror the U.S. defense budget has blown up out of proportion. The first bill aimed at providing funding for the war on terror cost American taxpayers $79 billion.
That same year, the total defense budget was $379 billion. The latest Defense budget to pass Congress called for $716 billion in new defense spending, and it passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Nearly doubling the defense budget since the beginning stages of the war on terror however has not proven to solve or even mitigate the problem. In addition, once taxpayer funds are allocated towards the defense budget it is very hard to keep track of spending. In the most recent audit of the Pentagon, it was determined that a whopping $21 trillion in financial transactions could not be traced, documented or explained. This is problematic in many ways and points to a need for accountability and transparency in government. It also suggests that Americans decide whether it is a good idea to relinquish a good deal of the nation’s wealth and resources to entities that are not accountable when those resources are misused. Those resources would be better off utilized in ways that bring social uplift and help to secure a decent education for our youth. This discrepancy in moral values, and the elevation of defense and war over social welfare, suggests a corruptive element to the war on terror.
Conflict among nations or factions is seen as an opportunity for some. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, many in the defense industry saw an opportunity to benefit from the crisis by offering solutions. Companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin were instrumental in galvanizing public support for the war in Iraq and have also been two of the main beneficiaries of the ballooning defense budget. Other companies like KBR and Halliburton were given lucrative contracts to provide services in Iraq. These same companies were involved in massive overcharging, wasteful practices and even scandals involving kickbacks to private subcontractors. Dick Cheney served as Chairman and CEO of Halliburton just before taking office, but he was able to avoid conflict of interest with the company even though his financial statements indicated that he received payments from the company through the first few years of his tenure as Vice President. Private security companies and even private military companies such as Blackwater, now called Academi, also sought to take advantage of the booming war economy. Private military companies have come under heavy scrutiny due to their ability to avoid accountability as well as the normal rules of engagement. One such egregious case involved Blackwater contractors, who opened fire on innocent civilians in Baghdad back in 2007, killing and wounding 31 people in one of the darkest moments in the Iraq war. The Bush administration fought vigorously to keep the contractors from being prosecuted in Iraq, and in a recent case one of the contractors was awarded a mistrial after jurors were unable to reach a verdict. Also in more recent developments, the private military companies have lobbied President Trump to privatize the combat effort in Afghanistan, further solidifying their shares of the market. While the companies believe that they are providing a valuable service for our troops and for the country, one cannot dismiss the drive for profits as a motivating factor, as it is with most companies. Businesses seeking to profit from war that engage in corrupt and illegal practices shouldn’t be awarded federal funding of any kind.
While shady business practices are not much of a surprise, as regulatory measures in the economy become ever-more lax, corrupt and possibly illegal practices in government have increased greatly since the initiation of the war on terror and the public is always wary of government corruption. Many scandals have come to light relating to the war on terror, from kidnappings through the CIA extraordinary rendition program to even torture. A Senate report made public in 2014 detailed the horrors of our treatment of enemy combatants in the war on terror. Another scandal that was revealed related to the war on terror was the massive surveillance program conducted by the NSA that was collecting vast amounts of communications from American citizens without warrants. The war on terror and the need to decipher the various terrorist networks justified the necessity of the program, but there are ways to collect this data without compromising American civil liberties. Extrajudicial killings, on the part of the U.S., are another hallmark of the war on terror that compromises the U.S. stance on the issue and the rule of law. The CIA predator drone program is responsible for the deaths of numerous people, including innocent women, children and the elderly. In a pair of incidents, the program eliminated two targets who also happened to be U.S. citizens. Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman were killed in separate drone strikes in 2011 for their roles in Al-Qaeda, sparking backlash and prompting renewed debate over the constitutionality of the drone program. The war on terror has effectively caused a constitutional crisis, prompting Americans to question even the most basic principles of freedom and democracy, like the outright banning of torture. However, while most Americans only must deal with the political and economic costs of the war on terror, many communities around the world suffer in much deeper and horrifying ways.
As mentioned, geopolitical maneuvering among powerful nations, as well as not-so-powerful ones, has increased since the beginning of the war on terror. This has caused heightened tensions as geopolitical interests clash in various regions throughout the world, however the conflict seems to have hit a boiling point in the middle east. Many countries in the region are either active war zones or have become safe havens for terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda or the Islamic State, known as ISIS. The vast oil and mineral deposits in the region are major driving forces behind the convergence of interests. Another driving force are the war industries, who specialize in buying and selling arms and need a venue in which to showcase their various tools of war. The result of this convergence of interests has been the mass killing of possibly hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people living in the region. According to one estimate, between 480,000 and 507,000 people have died in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan since the beginning of the war on terror. This does not include Syria, Libya or other known countries where counterterrorism efforts are underway, and the figures also do not include people who died indirectly as a result of the conflict. The region’s conflicts also caused mass displacement and intensified migration into neighboring Europe. For the U.S., the war has taken its heaviest toll on the soldiers. According to the Department of Veteran Affairs, back in 2014, 22 veterans committed suicide every day on average. High rates of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder continue to affect American troops, and studies have also shown an indirect link between combat deployment and suicide risk. The human toll suffered due to the war on terror has surpassed some of the deadliest conflicts of our nation’s past. With no end in sight, the number of human lives lost as a result of this war will reach astronomical proportions.
A solution to the war on terror is out there, but the current situation in the United States suggests that the political will to end the war no longer exists. As mentioned, the defense budget has doubled since the early days of the war on terror, and this has been a largely bipartisan effort. Another factor keeping the notion of a war on terror vibrant is the absence of a meaningful anti-war movement. Some observers point out that during the Vietnam War, the military draft was a catalyst for the anti-war movement because more people felt coerced into either fighting or supporting the war. Conversely, the current absence of a draft has made the organization of a large anti-war movement difficult. In addition, the current environment of hyper-patriotism has effectively silenced dissident voices and calls to end the war on terror. Indeed, it is common for criticism to follow those who question their nation’s policies during times of war. However, this idea of patriotism has taken hold to the point where peaceful demonstrations during the national anthem lead to calls to boycott or even do harm to some of the demonstrators. In order for the tide to turn and for an end of the war on terror to be realized, a total reshaping of our understanding of the conflict needs to take place. The public needs to be informed about the roots of the conflict and the U.S. role in creating the war on terror. In addition, Congress needs to take back its power to declare war, eliminate the President’s sole ability to authorize military force and restore checks and balances on the executive. As long as war can be authorized without debate and mountains of cash can be made, there will never be enough political will to end the war on terror.
In conclusion, the war on terror has raged on for over 17 years and seems poised to last for 17 more. The scope of the issue is just as far-reaching, because the war on terror is now global and the geopolitics of the war has led to tensions that puts the world on course for a potential nuclear standoff with other global powers. The issue has caused a major drain on our nation’s economic, political and social health. Programs of social uplift make way for an ever-expanding defense budget that threatens to render the nation poor, unhealthy and uneducated. Corruption, fraud and government secrets have increased since the war on terror began, and during that same time accountability has seemingly decreased. The war has produced an almost uncountable number of casualties and has displaced millions of people from the lands they once called home. After 17 years, what gains have been made in our efforts to thwart terrorism? I would argue that after nearly two decades of focus on this issue the gains from our policies have been unnoticeable and the consequences all too apparent. The future could very well depend on Man’s willingness to act on this issue and with the doomsday clock at the closest to midnight it has ever been, time is of the essence.
