War on Terror

Waron Terror

Socialissues refer to any issue that can influence or oppose considerableindividuals in a society. Some of the controversies that affect thesocial issues include capitalism, terrorism, and other politicalissues. War on terrorism seems to be the current most criticizedsocial issue globally (Klaidman10).Criticism of the war on terror tends to address ethics, moral,efficiency, economics among others, which are concerned with war onterror. War against terrorism has been criticized hence, enforcinginvolved governments to seek long-standing military or policyobjectives. Terrorism, usually, infringes human rights and reducescivil liberties (Coughlin,28).

Scholarsargue that terrorism is not a war but a tactic. Activists argue thatthe war on terror cannot be ended by either signing treaty ordestroying weapons (Hunt,Krista, and Rygiel 87).Jason burke, a journalist, wrote about Islamic activity by describingterrorism. The writer states that, Terrorism can be defined inmultiple ways that are subjective. Most people interpret it as athreat or serious advance violence. Some states refer to it asideological, religious, and political. Similarly, others refer it tothe killing of innocent people (Coughlin,43).In most cases, people define terrorism due to attacks that includearmed explosives, firearm, and other weapons. Terrorism is an act ofterrorism as there is no any clear definition of terrorism.

GeorgeBush, former US president, once articulated the aims of war on terrorwill not end until each and every terrorist group of the world arefound, stopped, and later defeated. According to him, war is anunending game. Terrorist justifications included attacks made on Iraqto prevent the terroristic activities in the United States (Hunt,et al., 93).Activist argues that the United States war on Iraq was neverjustified. They lacked requirements for the fulfillment of just war.Similarly, U.S and the UN charter are regarded to have brokeninternational law. Scholars argue that the decision of attacking Iraqin 2003 was discretional and of choice. The Iraq had neverrepresented any gathering threat. Therefore, the United States hadalternatives of not using military force. Additionally, they arguethat options such as sanctions were to be used instead of weaponryattacks (Coughlin,28).

RichardN. Haass, the council of foreign relations president, reveal that USattacked Afghanistan in 2001 that stated as war ended up in somethingelse. The current president of US Obama increased levels of troops inAfghanistan. In addition, the president declared that it was theirmandate to fight Taliban. Controversies continue on the war on terrorattacks in Afghanistan. Scholars argue that the war had little to dowith its purpose. Furthermore, Iraq had nothing to do with thatinvasion, and attacks of September and was only doctored. Reportsshow that, the war on terrorism in Iraq led to an increase interrorism in the region (Coughlin,29).

Accordingto domestic civil liberties, war on terror may end civil rights.Critics argue that Bush administration restricted civil liberties andrather created a culture of fear. According to the USA PATRIOT Act ofthe United States congress after 2001 attacks, the U.S power wasincreased. Activist criticized it as a too broad initiative that hadpurposes that were unrelated to fighting terrorism. Federal programmeant to collect and process amount of data to identify threats ofterrorism faced many controversies. They argue that the program was acase of mass surveillance and an Orwellian (McCoy,15).

TheUnited Kingdom raised controversies claiming that Blair’sgovernment initiated war on terror to curtail civil libertiesradically. The liberties included detention without trial andrestrictions for holding protests. Similarly, there were no policechecks and no glorification of terrorism. Former liberal party leadersir Campbell also criticized the Blair’s action. The leader relatedthe controversy to practice of the extraordinary renditions and toargue that the human rights convention acted as signatories. Thesignatories were imposed on government to prevent and investigate thepotential human rights violation and torture (Hunt,et al., 35).

Thespeech of Bush, that states, “you are either with us or terrorists”gained many critics. The statement made diplomacy to differentcountries more difficult. It is so since all countries have one oranother problem. In addition, the control over oils and pipelines byUnited States as a way of counterterrorism seems irrelevant andunethical. The war on terror by the United States and the NATO statesagainst Islamic countries seem controversial (Coughlin,31).

Theinvasions are seen as the war labeled against the Islam. Theex-United States attorney general Clark Ramsey supported the critics.Moazzam Begg stated that, “I think the history tends to repeatitself, and for Muslim world, and even the greater part of non-Muslimworld, they begin to know now that there tend to be ambitions by theU.S having on the Islamic nations and wealth.” The interrogationmethods done by the U.S forces in the Guantanamo bay and the AbuGhraib relate to unethical and immoral (Clarke, 110). They argue thatthe actions do not make them different with the insurgents they aretrying to locate. Critics view the war on the terror attack as a formof terrorism in itself. They refer to the incidences of the Bagramtorture and abuse of prisoners’ scandal. Chemical weapons were usedagainst terrorist and the military force applied to disperseanti-America demonstrations in the Iraq.

Politicalanalysts have written books that relate suicide terrorism to militaryrules and not extremist ideologies. They believe increased militaryoccupations tend to increase terrorism. According to the nationalintelligence estimates, war in Iraq has facilitated increase inthreat of terrorism. 16 different intelligence agencies compiled thereports. The report includes the full assessment of the globalterrorism since the beginning of the Iraq war (McCoy,21).

Clarke(110) argued that military interventions and occupation are the mainkeys for increased terrorism. Similarly, the factors lead to thestructural violence. Structural violence refers to the economicconditions that tend to cause backwardness and attribute to economicpolicies of western nations especially the U.S. Critics furtherraised controversies on the United States initiatives of grantingpolitical asylums to alleged terrorist organizations and terroriststo seek the overthrow of Fidel Castro. The U.S. is also criticizedthe attacks on Afghanistan. They are linked to training of assailantstrained to fight the Afghanistan. The Americans also criticized thewar on terrorism by the United States (Coughlin,50).

Researchreports reveal that media coverage tend to contribute to theuninformed and confused public on matters of terrorism. The publictends to be misinformed on the plans and justification of the war onterror. They argue that the public is the reason for terroristattacks. They are always given wrong information and end up reactingunknowingly. Communicators frequently frame the informationunconsciously or consciously(Clarke, 110). The media focus onterrorist initiated catastrophes and the principal government’sweaknesses on counter-terrorism. Political analysts refer to mediareports and events as anti-democratic institutions. The informationcontains framed terror stories that end up inciting the public. Theyare misinformed on the level of threat and its nature by the UnitedStates (McCoy,15).

Thedebate on the real war on terrorism as a social issue had muchsignificance. The world was opened eye on the real terrorismactivities, fight, and real ambitions of the fighting countries(Clarke, 111). The controversy creates a significant role and revealsthat those responsible for the acts of terrorism should be executedby the criminal justice system. In addition, legislative restraintsare needed in the passing of the anti-terrorism laws (Coughlin,28).According to the critics, it is revealed that the violence attackswere to tempt countries such as Britain to abandon their values.

Thediscussion also provides lessons on how war on terror should behandled and the mind game present in counter terrorism. Similarly, itis revealed that Islamic countries may not always be on the wrongside when accused and invaded. However, they are sometimes innocentand only face uncertainties from developed countries such as UnitedStates. Finally, the war on terror is the primary cause of increasedterrorism activities.


Clarke,Richard. Againstall enemies: Inside America`s war on terror.Simon and Schuster, 2008.

Coughlin,Con. Americanally: Tony Blair and the war on terror.HarperCollins, 2013.

Hunt,Ms Krista, and Ms Kim Rygiel, eds. (En)gendering the war on terror: war stories and camouflaged politics.Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2013.

Klaidman,Daniel. Killor capture the war on terror and the soul of the Obama presidency. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2012.

McCoy,Alfred. Aquestion of torture: CIA interrogation, from the Cold War to the Waron Terror.Macmillan, 2007.