“This crusade, this war on terrorismis going to take a while”. – George W. Bush[1]The war on terrorism is a multidimensional campaign that was launched in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. It was intended to lead the world into a new phase that would provide security, repair global relations, intact human rights, amend international laws, and assist in the governing of minorities. The military institutions that were built because of the war on terrorism would have had major political, cultural, and economic consequences in the development of foreign policy and the weakened state of international relations. The readings that will be discussed are Same As It Ever Was: Nuclear Alarmism, Proliferation, and the Cold War by F.J. Gavin, Outsourcing War by P.W. Singer, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: a political perspective on culture and terrorism by M. Mamdani, and Human Rights and Human Insecurity: the contributions of U.S. Counterterrorism by J. Mertus and Sajjad, T. Each of these articles provide similarities and differences on important concepts and themes such as the abuse of history, usage of nuclear weapons, privatization of the military, foreign policy implications, the war on terrorism, counterterrorism, and human rights. Evidence from these articles, as well as current events will be analyzed.
Gavin’s primary argument and purpose of the argument is to argue against the unchallenged view of many scholars, that nuclear proliferation is the gravest threat facing the United States today[2]. His argument takes it a step further to say that many scholars believe it to be “worse than it has ever been”[3]. This argument is significant because it prolongs the constant narrative we see about the war on terrorism. If scholars believe that today, nuclear proliferation is at its worst, it creates hysteria and counteracts of war to continue to fight this war. Gavin suggests that we should abandon the nuclear alarmism approach because it is based on 4 myths of how nuclear weaponry was used during the Cold War[4]. Narratives such as these affects how history is written, and how decisions relating to foreign relations are conducted. Gavin argues that this approach misguides our history, and furthers conflict between nations, which in turn does not help the fight for global human rights. If our military continuously puts all its energy into “the worse fight the United States has ever seen”, we will, in turn start to ignore the real threats against global human rights. We have learned that context matters in how nuclear issues are handled. This hysteria expands into how the United States operates its military as well.
Singer’s article discusses the privatization of the military and the use of force in private sectors against the war on terrorism[5]. The article provides evidence as to how private military firms (PMFs) dress up their provided “freedom to kill” as a forceful means to an end with private means. The article brings to light of the dilemma at hand about giving these private military firms this freedom to kill because this use of legitimate force affects our democracy as a whole and how other nations respond with counter terrorist acts. The outsourcing of private military forces directly conflicts with the United States military and its government. Singer’s argument explains major political shifts with the Department of Defense, due to PMFs. When private sectors violate human rights or wrongfully kill, Singer proposes the question of who do private military firms answer too? What are their limitations if they are given the freedom to kill those who pose a threat with the use of legitimate force? In the article written by J. Mertus and Sajjad T., the primary argument made by the authors is the counterterrorism campaigns fail to recognize the connection between rights denial and terrorism[6]. With the formation of these private sectors and human rights consistently being violated, politicians are short- sighted in recognizing the connection between the two. The article examines 4 key components that make up their argument: the abuse of prisoner rights in detention, erosion of civil liberties, curtailing rights of ethnic minorities, and the manipulation of international law to serve narrowly defined national interests[7]. This argument is significant because the global war against terrorism has created a path for the President’s administration to make misguided decisions on how to handle terrorism. This misguided analysis of history will cause global failure in foreign policy because there is little or no focus on the furthering of global human rights. This phenomenon relates to the discussion to the mistreatment that private military firms are allowed to give to terrorists, who are primarily framed by the media to consists of minority individuals (culturally, racially, religiously, and ethnically).
- Mamdami’s article focuses on how media frames have affected minority groups after the attacks on 9/11 and have produced a context of events that is “dehistoricized”[8]. The author wants his readers to understand that history and politics must take culture into consideration to understand the full scope of events, especially when discussing the war on terrorism. Having a comparative eye that analyzes the individual’s background, the erosion of civil liberties, the role those international relations played, and how the media framed the act will leave readers more informed about how politics, culture, and history all form a web in foreign policy. In relation to Mamdami’s argument, 2 current event articles were researched to show how media frames terrorism in the news. A search of “terrorism” was made in the search engine of the New York Times website, and multiple articles referring to radicalization, Islam, Muslim, 9/11, and bombs were brought up. It is interesting how even conducting a simple search, the terms we use daily are centered around a specific group of individuals. According to Mamdami this is the “mark of the plural”, which states that actions involving a person of a minority group reflection the entire ethnic group; while actions committed by someone who in most cases is white, only reflects the actions of that individuals. The mark of the plural impacts the way that we view and address terrorism. The social construction and the abuse of history also affect the way Westerners are viewed as well. Both articles show the Good Muslim- Bad Muslim paradigm that Mamdami was referring too and shed light on how counter terroristic acts and the global war on terrorism centers those who are Muslim after 9/11 occurred. Mamdami also suggests that media frames illustrate the Good Westerner and Bad Westerner as well.
The first article titled “The New Radicalization of the Internet”[9], by the Editorial Board discusses a cross’s analysis of how Jihadists and right- wing extremists use remarkably similar social media strategies[10]. The article explains that “according to the Global Terrorism Database each of these attacks falls under the definition of right- wing extremism which states that “violence in support of the belief that personal and/ or national way of life is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent.” This article relates to Mamdami’s point of how the media interacts with culture and politics. The role that social media plays in inciting violence is significant. It is a consumer market for extreme terrorism because it is so accessible. Information today has very easy access. It is our jobs as readers to take it a step further, and analyze and incorporate different ideologies, re-read history, and examine all the facts before stereotyping and labeling a group of people based on the actions of an individuals or group of individuals.
The second article titled “Twin Brothers Plead Guilty to Bronx Bomb- Making- Plot by Benjamin Weiser[11] discusses how a formal schoolteacher and his twin brother admitted in federal court that they stockpiled 32 pounds of explosives in their apartment. This article was framed around how the brothers were planning to reenact the mass killing of concertgoers in Las Vegas. The article made a point to address how, “the brothers did not appear to be inspired by international terrorist groups like the Islamic State, but the government has asserted that the threat the men posed was real”.[12] It was interesting to see how an article positioned even though the men were not affiliated with an Islamic terrorist group, the newspaper had to make a point to address the fact that they weren’t associated.
Both articles show a correlation into how the media frames terrorist acts or their fight against the war on terrorism. With a simple search, it is easy to identify how a group of ethnic minorities has targeted since 9/11. The nuclear alarmism attitude, the social construction of the mark of the plural, and the abuse of the writing of historical events have all participated in
In our textbook, Kaufman lays out her final thoughts on the future of U.S. foreign policy. She addresses how the Cold War was key in shaping the use of power in foreign policy relations[13] Kaufman goes on further to state how power has been used in the past has changed and evolved since the Cold War. [14]The United States has always had to keep the discussions and disagreements open on when to exert “hard power” and when to use “soft power” in times of crisis. This changing notion of power has impacted how other nations interact with U.S. Soft power, according to Kaufman has become more prominent since the end of the Cold War. This contributed to the change in national interest and the imbalance of U.S. powers in government.[15] U.S. foreign policy has always revolved around this notion of protection. The President, Congress, and the military have all been granted this freedom to protect by any means necessary, even when the ends to do not justify the means. Since the Cold War has ended, Kaufman describes how the United States has had to confront a changed perception of threat. The threat of terrorism, or the war on terrorism. I agree with Kaufman’s points that each change in power, threat, and national interests, it remains hard to determine how to frame a foreign policy to meet the challenges that the U.S. faces in the future. We have talked about how the powers granted to those in power need to be accessed for history to not repeat itself and cause ruin.
Foreign policy is ever changing and evolving. We as Political Scientists must analyze historical evidence to make conscious decisions on how to frame foreign policy and interact in global affairs. We cannot assume, nor rely on just one side of historical events. The war on terrorism has shaped the way that the United States handles foreign policy, and those in power have been allocated powers that fight force with force. It is our responsibility as civilians to shed light on how the different levels of government interact and make decisions that in the end affect our country, and the world.
Works Cited
Gavin, Francis J. “Same As It Ever Was: Nuclear Alarmism, Proliferation, and the Cold War.” International Security 34, no. 3 (2010): 7-37. ICollege.
Graham, Phil, Thomas Keenan, and Anne-Maree Dowd. “A call to arms at the end of history: A discourse–historical analysis of George W. Bush’s declaration of war on terror.” Discourse & Society 15, no. 2-3 (2004): 199-221.
Kaufman, Joyce P. A concise history of US foreign policy. Rowman & Littlefield, 2017.
Mamdani, Mahmood. “Good Muslim, bad Muslim: A political perspective on culture and terrorism.” American anthropologist104, no. 3 (2002): 766-775.ICollege.
Mertus, Julie, and Tazreena Sajjad. “Human rights and human insecurity: The contributions of US counterterrorism.” Journal of Human Rights 7, no. 1 (2008): 2-24.
Singer, Peter W. “Outsourcing war.” Foreign Aff. 84 (2005): 119.ICollege.
Weiser, Benjamin. “Twin Brothers Plead Guilty to Bronx Bomb- Making- Plot. New York Times, Nov. 26, 2018. Nov. 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/nyregion/brothers-bomb-making-guilty.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FTerrorism&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection
Editorial Board. “The New Radicalization of the Internet”. New York Times, Nov. 26, 2018. Nov. 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/24/opinion/sunday/facebook-twitter-terrorism extremism.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FTerrorism&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection
[1] Graham, Phil, Thomas Keenan, and Anne-Maree Dowd. “A call to arms at the end of history: A discourse–historical analysis of George W. Bush’s declaration of war on terror.” Discourse & Society 15, no. 2-3 (2004): 199-221.
[2] Gavin, Francis J. “Same As It Ever Was: Nuclear Alarmism, Proliferation, and the Cold War.” International Security 34, no. 3 (2010) Pgs. 2-4 ICollege.
[3] Gavin, Francis J. “Same As It Ever Was: Nuclear Alarmism, Proliferation, and the Cold War.” International Security 34, no. 3 (2010) Pgs. 5-11 ICollege.
[4] Gavin, Francis J. “Same As It Ever Was: Nuclear Alarmism, Proliferation, and the Cold War.” International Security 34, no. 3 (2010) Pgs. 14-20 ICollege.
[5] Singer, Peter W. “Outsourcing war.” Foreign Aff. 84 (2005): Pgs. 1-6. ICollege.
[6] Mertus, Julie, and Tazreena Sajjad. “Human rights and human insecurity: The contributions of US counterterrorism.” Journal of Human Rights 7, no. 1 (2008): 2-7.
[7] Mertus, Julie, and Tazreena Sajjad. “Human rights and human insecurity: The contributions of US counterterrorism.” Journal of Human Rights 7, no. 1 (2008): 11-20.
[8] Mamdani, Mahmood. “Good Muslim, bad Muslim: A political perspective on culture and terrorism.” American anthropologist104, no. 3 (2002): 766-775. ICollege.
[9] Editorial Board. “The New Radicalization of the Internet”. New York Times, Nov. 26, 2018. Nov. 2018.
[10]Editorial Board. “The New Radicalization of the Internet”. New York Times, Nov. 26, 2018. Nov. 2018.
[11] Weiser, Benjamin. “Twin Brothers Plead Guilty to Bronx Bomb- Making- Plot. New York Times, Nov. 26, 2018. Nov. 2018.
[12] Weiser, Benjamin. “Twin Brothers Plead Guilty to Bronx Bomb- Making- Plot. New York Times, Nov. 26, 2018. Nov. 2018.
[13] Kaufman, Joyce P. A concise history of US foreign policy. Rowman & Littlefield, 2017.Pg. 189.
[14] Kaufman, Joyce P. A concise history of US foreign policy. Rowman & Littlefield, 2017. Pg. 190.
[15] Kaufman, Joyce P. A concise history of US foreign policy. Rowman & Littlefield, 2017. Pg. 191.
write