Re-conceptualizing the War on Terror
Date
2009
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Producer
Director
Performer
Choreographer
Costume Designer
Music
Videographer
Lighting Designer
Set Designer
Crew Member
Funder
Rehearsal Director
Concert Coordinator
Advisor
Moderator
Panelist
Alternative Title
Department
Haverford College. Department of Political Science
Type
Thesis
Original Format
Running Time
File Format
Place of Publication
Date Span
Copyright Date
Award
Language
eng
Note
Table of Contents
Terms of Use
Rights Holder
Access Restrictions
Haverford users only
Terms of Use
Tripod URL
Identifier
Abstract
Since September 11, 2001, the United States has been at war with terrorism. This War on Terror (WOT) has taken a prominent place in the American political landscape, as it has had wide-ranging implications and consequences. These can be seen in everyday actions--from the security protocols in airports to daily news coverage of our military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Over the last seven years, this war has cost billions of dollars and encompassed widely varied subjects. Due to the enormous amount of resources and political capital expended by the American government, the results of this war are important—both for the safety of the country and the integrity of the political process. A failure in the WOT could have numerous ramifications for the United States. The country could lose its status as world superpower or more concretely be vulnerable to another large-scale terrorist attack. However, the complex nature of this endeavor raises several basic questions. As Douglas Feith, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy asks, "Who is the enemy? Are we winning or losing? How will we know when it's over?" These are not easy questions and require larger conceptualizations of the WOT to understand and analyze. The ability to answer these questions and others like them are invaluable in the analysis of the WOT. Many authors in the field, as well as the government, have attempted to create frameworks for analysis so as to better prosecute the WOT. The WOT is indeed a complex endeavor that covers many arenas. While the complexity is necessary, it also makes it difficult to analyze the nature of the war. The wide range of issues poses myriad possible problems and pitfalls. This range makes it difficult for authors to find inclusive conceptualizations of the WOT. Due to the seemingly overwhelming nature of the unified WOT, some authors try to focus on specific problems or issues. This focus and specificity is necessary and helpful in solving specific problems, but a larger view is needed to oversee such a large process. In this paper, several authors and their conceptualizations of the WOT will be presented. While they all have merit, they can each be improved in some area—making the broader application of the conceptualization difficult or unwieldy. This poorly focused effort is partly due to the lack of a clear enemy. Without a clear statement of the enemy, pursuing the WOT becomes much more difficult. The enemy and its threat dictate what the most useful strategy to combat it will be. Without a clear enemy, there can be no clear strategy to defeat it—leading to some of the problems experienced by the authors and policy makers. While academic insight is necessary and helpful, for ideas to become policy the political process is required. The American government is responsible for policy in the end and has produced numerous documents regarding the WOT—making it a priority. Although the WOT has received serious attention, most politicians are not experts in the field of counterterrorism. While they have looked to experts for guidance, politicians do not always take the advice offered—leaving room for improvement. Government documents will be analyzed to see how and where policy can be improved. After looking at the works of other authors and politicians, a new framework of response will be suggested--one that is more flexible and able to deal with a wider range of issues without losing effectiveness by being diluted too broadly. The need for a flexible response strategy has been highlighted by the WOT, but its advantages do not end there. As the U.S. continues to face more asymmetrical and non-state threats, this response framework will provide the country with a whole range of policy options to pick and choose from.