Introduction
After the events of September 11, 2001, the United States’ domestic and foreign policies will never be the same. They also started the “War on Terrorism.” The planned attacks by Al-Qaeda on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center shocked the whole world and led the US and its partners to launch a sizeable military reaction. Over the next few years, the War grew in both direction and scale, which led to complex legal and moral arguments about fairness, human rights, and who was responsible. “War on Terrorism” is a complicated and diverse idea that came about because of the rising danger of terrorism, especially after the terrible September 11 attacks. This article will look at the historical background of the “War on Terrorism,” the events and factors that led to it, how the US and its partners responded, and the most important moral problems that arose because of the conflict.
Historical Context
The “War on Terrorism” has its roots in many things that happened in the past, such as the rise of terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and their global acts of terrorism. Tensions between Muslim fanatics and Western countries started a long time before 9/11. The Soviet attack on Afghanistan in the late 1970s sparked the rise of extreme Islamic rebel groups like Al-Qaeda. To fight Soviet rule, these groups got weapons and money from the US and Saudi Arabia (Sahel, 2020). However, in the post-Cold War time, America moved attention away from the Middle East while terrorist networks like Al-Qaeda turned their hatred towards the West (Vincent, 2023). Over 200 people were killed when U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed in 1998 (Vincent, 2023) as part of a run of attacks in the 1990s that showed Al-Qaeda’s growing tactical and geographical reach. These events brought to light the growing threat of foreign terrorism, but at the time, policymakers did not pay much attention to them. However, the September 11 attacks on the United States were the turning point that made people all over the world want to fight terrorism. Terrorists took over commercial planes on that terrible day in 2001 and crashed them into the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., killing thousands of innocent people.
Initiation of the “War on Terrorism”
Following the 9/11 strikes, the US, led by President George W. Bush, declared a “War on Terrorism.” This statement was a significant change in U.S. foreign policy. The country is now focusing more on fighting terrorism at home and worldwide. The attacks woke up the whole world and made it clear that we need to work together to stop more terrorist attacks.
Response of the United States and Its Allies
Nineteen Al-Qaeda terrorists took over planes and crashed them into the World Trade Center towers in New York City and the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., on September 11, 2001. The attacks killed almost 3,000 people. This terrible attack killed more people than any other foreign attack on American land and led to a quick military reaction. Because of the 9/11 attacks, the US started military operations in Afghanistan, going after the Taliban government and al-Qaeda members they thought were hiding attackers and helping them (Kumar, 2021). The US started Operation Enduring Freedom in October 2001 against Al-Qaeda training camps and the Taliban government in Afghanistan, which had been hiding Osama bin Laden (Sahel, 2020). Within two months, the Taliban government was overthrown, and many Al-Qaeda leaders were killed or put in jail. In the end, U.S. special forces found and killed bin Laden in 2011 (Sahel, 2020; Vincent, 2023/). Along with other countries, the US made partnerships, like those with NATO members and military partners, to improve overall security and share information. These partners worked together to back military actions, send aid to people in need, and help settle areas that had been affected by terrorists.
However, America’s reaction grew more prominent over the next few years. The U.S. and its partners attacked Iraq in 2003, saying that Saddam Hussein’s government had weapons of mass destruction. However, no such weapons were ever found (Sahel, 2020). The main goal changed from fighting terrorism to changing the government. This was done so that American leaders could show they were in charge in the Middle East (Vincent, 2023). Subsequent military actions were started against terrorist groups in countries like Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan, utilizing drones and special forces to target militant leaders (Vincent, 2023). As the wars went on for more than ten years, support from both inside and outside of the country decreased because of the financial and social costs.
Ethical Theories and Principles
Just War Theory and Proportionality
They were based on several moral ideas and ideals while fighting the “War on Terrorism.” A strong theory about War and terrorism is the idea of “just war,” which says that force should only be used in certain situations, like self-defence or to protect innocent people. Classical just war theory sets the conditions for when violence is okay: a good reason, the proper authority, the right amount of violence, and a good chance of success (Early & Schulzke, 2019). However, some say that America’s wars after 9/11 were too big and focused too much on global goals instead of just fighting terrorism (Sahel, 2020). People have said that the wide range and length of answers have made radicalism worse instead of stopping it (Hajjar, 2019). Opening-ended wars like the “War on Terror” also make it very hard to reach a fair and final conclusion. How to Treat and Protect Detainees.
For the sake of national security, controversial rules were put in place, such as military courts, detention without trial for an undetermined amount of time, and practices like waterboarding that are generally seen as torture for questioning (Hajjar, 2019; Kretchik, 2021). Officials said these ways provided helpful information but caused much anger and hurt America’s moral authority. Also, over 100 prisoners died in U.S. care for unknown reasons (Kretchik, 2021). Extraordinary rendition and the use of “black sites” made it even harder to find out who was responsible.
On the other hand, utilitarianism looks at acts based on how they affect different people and tries to make everyone happier or less unhappy generally. Human rights principles stress that every person, including prisoners and citizens touched by military combat, has natural respect and worth. Additionally, international law, which includes treaties and agreements, sets rules for how states should act during wartime.
Civilian Casualties and Collateral Damage
Terrorist groups use modern irregular warfare strategies, such as hiding among civilians, that go against the rules of just War about what is fair and what is not (Hajjar, 2019). However, it is clear that the random nature of drone strikes and military raids carried out as part of the “War on Terror” has also claimed the lives of harmless people (Sahel, 2020). Using exact targets and rules of engagement to keep civilian deaths to a minimum is an ongoing battle that shapes how people see authority.
Key Ethical Issues
The “War on Terrorism” has brought up several moral problems that must be carefully considered. One of these problems is the dilemma of citizen deaths and other damage caused by armed activities. Even though people have tried to keep civilians as safe as possible, they have often been the ones hurt the most by armed wars. This has created moral problems about what is fair and how to protect civilians.
Another controversial topic is the use of questioning techniques, such as torture, on suspected attackers and people who are being held. Some say these methods are necessary to get important information and stop future attacks. Others say that they are wrong and break basic morals and human rights, like the international law that says torture is illegal.
There have also been arguments about the morality of military action and the standards for judging how immediate a threat is regarding preemptive strikes and self-defence. People who are against prior actions say that they can weaken authority and make things less stable. People who are for them say that states have the right to defend themselves against threats they see as to their security.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the “War on Terrorism” is a problematic and morally questionable project that has changed how people think about War and international relations. Even though the danger of terrorism is always there, tackling this problem with a deep understanding of moral values and challenging situations is essential. People worldwide can work toward a fairer and calmer world free from terrorists by respecting human rights, following international law, and encouraging discussion and teamwork.
References
Early, B. R., & Schulzke, M. (2019). Still unjust, just in different ways: how targeted sanctions fall short of just war theory’s principles. International Studies Review, 21(1), 57-80.
Hajjar, L. (2019). The Counterterrorism war paradigm versus international humanitarian law: The legal contradictions and global consequences of the US “War on Terror”. Law & Social Inquiry, 44(4), 922–956.
Kretchik, W. E. (2021). Us Army Doctrine: From the American Revolution to the War on terror. University Press of Kansas.
Kumar, D. (2021). Islamophobia and the politics of empire: twenty years after 9/11. Verso books.
Sahel, S. (2020). Taliban, Terrorism and War on Terror: Assessing US Involvement in Afghanistan. Humanities, 3(2), 47–67.
Vincent, E. A. (2023). Terrorism and Global Security: A Comparative Analysis of Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State (IS). Saudi J. Humanities Soc Sci, 8(10), 318-328.
write