That War on Terror

9/11 was the start of a long war on terror.  I have written many articles on this “war” (archives will get you to them all)…and in all those posts I have tried to point out one thing…

The War on Terror is a war on a tactic not an entity……and as such needs a new approach…..

But first, this war on a tactic…..

The United States is engaged in an unusual global war, fighting a tactic rather than an enemy nation. Unlike traditional warfare, it is possible that this war between the US and terrorist networks will not produce a clear winner. The US and its allies have been involved in military engagements over the past decade and a half, costing the US taxpayer an estimated $1.5 to $5.6 trillion dollars. The longer the US remains embroiled in this armed conflict, the less likely it is that such a war ends favorably from an American perspective. While US defense strategy will need to include counter-terrorism efforts for decades to come, it is time to end the war by beginning to reframe the narrative behind the Global War on Terror (GWOT).

In the context of the GWOT, terrorism refers most frequently to random attacks on civilians by groups who seek to conduct religious war against the United States. In using these terrorist tactics, these groups specifically intend to sow widespread fear. Recent polls show that a growing number of Americans feel “less safe” than they did before 9/11.

Every country is trying to fight this GWOT the same way….traditional, even Napoleonic tactics, this will not win this so-called war…..

This is an excellent paper written by a grad student in International Relations…..

Confronting new threats requires new thinking. Anachronistic understandings of security primarily arise from ideological suppositions that not only continue to frustrate prudent policy but also create increased insecurity. State failures, and the geopolitical disorder that followed, were born out of policies generated by reified thinking as to what constitutes material threats in a world order transfigured by the end of the Cold War. Yet Cold War thinking remains the guiding principle when approaching contemporary threats to state and international security alike (Jacob, 2017, xviii). Interrogating ideology—a category that begs attention in international relations—helps account for counterproductive security practices. An examination of Cold War theories, global “war on terror” practices, and the passé interplay between the two illuminates the ideological and structural checks that vex geopolitical order in this new century.

The chance of a terror attack as not been lessen if anything it has made more likely.

So is the ‘war’ a waste of money?


11 thoughts on “That War on Terror

      1. The Gatwick drone incident has turned out to probably be a case of ‘operator error’ by whoever claimed to witness a drone. There wasn’t a drone, at least no evidence of one.

        As for foreign ownership of infrastructure and companies, that was never a campaign issue, as almost nothing can be done about it, short of nationalising all utilities, and most manufacturing. The Conservatives would never be in favour of that, and even the resurgent Labour Party would stop short at government takeovers of private companies.
        So unless a revolutionary left-wing government come to power, with a 100% nationalisation agenda, it will never happen. As for globalisation, Amazon, Google, and Facebook are already three of the biggest companies in the UK. All owned in the main by Americans. Car companies have been sold off decades ago, and most things like gas, electric power, and nuclear energy, are all owned or managed by foreign companies, including Chinese and French ones.
        The reason that all the focus was on Brussels was because the restrictive EU rules made Britain one of the ‘poor relations’ in the EU, pumping more money into the organisation than it ever received. If memory serves, the ‘shortfall’ (difference, or ‘balance) was something like £90 million a WEEK. Getting away from those restrictions will be a start. It may come to nothing, but it’s worth a try.

  1. I think the introduction of the term was mistake. We had a war against AQ, the organization that carried out the attack. Another W Bush mistake.

    We have misused lives and trillions of dollars based on mistaken policy.

    Trump ran party on changing that policy and drew enough votes to get elected. He has made some changes but needs to make more.

    Not easy to change the direction of a aircraft carrier and all the fleet protecting it. Even harder to change direction of policy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.