370 likes | 641 Views
The War on Terrorism. The Significance of 9-11. Changed focus of U.S. foreign policy overnight. The “ war on terrorism ” became central concern of Bush administration. Was no “war on terrorism” before 9-11. Bush’s Response. Characterized attacks as
E N D
The Significance of 9-11 • Changed focus of U.S. foreign policy overnight. • The “war on terrorism” became central concern of Bush administration. • Was no “war on terrorism” before 9-11.
Bush’s Response • Characterized attacks as “more than acts of terror, they were acts of war”. • “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” • Viewed war on terrorism with “moral clarity” - as a war between good and evil. Bush's speech to nation on 9-11 Bush speech to Congress on 9-20
Bush’s Response • “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” • Recruited worldwide coalition to fight“war on terrorism.” • “This war on terrorism won’t end until every terrorist group with global reach... has been defeated.”
Worldwide Support for U.S. • Strong support from U.S. allies. • NATO invoked Article 5 of its charter for the first and only time!
New “Alliances of Convenience” • New alliances based on shared interests and on geopolitics (realpolitik). • Pakistan • Former Soviet republics in Central Asia. • Northern Alliance fighters in Afghanistan • Russia and China • Improved relations with some former foes. • Yemen • Sudan • Iran
October, 2001War’s First Phase: Afghanistan • Military retaliation against al Qaeda and Taliban regime providing safe haven to bin Laden. • Unconventionalwar fought by: • CIA operatives & U.S. Special Forces. • Northern Alliance allies. • Supported by U.S. airpower.
Results of War in Afghanistan, 2001 • Al Qaeda bases destroyed. • Taliban defeated and removed from power. • New pro-Western Afghan government put in place. • Most Taliban and al Qaeda leaders escaped into neighboring Pakistan. Afghanistan’s new president HamidKarsai
The Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) • War on terrorism has been a global campaign with no boundaries - and no end in sight. • Al Qaeda and its affiliates span the globe. • Requires U.S. assistance to -- and from -- many other governments. • Has meant an expanded U.S. military presence throughout the world.
Major Terrorist Attacks Since 9-11 London 2005 Madrid 2004 Morocco 2011 Bali 2002
The “Axis of Evil” • 2002 State of the Union speech – President Bush expanded scope of war on terrorism to include rogue states possessing or devel- oping WMD. • Said an “Axis of Evil” existed in the world today: • Iran • Iraq • North Korea
Axis of Evil • Accused all three states of seeking WMDs and said U.S. would do “whatever was necessary” to keep these states from acquiring such weapons. • Accused all three countries of having links with terrorist groups. Bush's 2002 State of the Union Address
Axis of Evil • Some U.S. allies had strong reservations about expand- ing war on terrorism against these states. • None of these countries had been linked to Sept. 11. • Concerns over what the U.S. planned next – especially in regards to Iraq.
National Security Strategy 2002 • The Bush Doctrine, a new post 9-11 defense strategy was first spelled out in this document. • Identified greatest threat facing the U.S. and the world today: Terrorist networks with global reach coexisting with rogue states possessing WMD. • Warned that terrorists might soon acquire these WMD and use them against the U.S.
The Bush Doctrine • Doctrine asserted that U.S. must defend itself by actingpreemptively against these terrorists and rogue states. • Meant striking against our enemies before they can use their WMD against us.
The Bush Doctrine (con’t) • Asserted right to act against “emerging” threats “before they are fully formed” -- not just immediate threats • Controversial interpretation of the tradition right to self- defense. Why?
Preemption vs. Prevention • Sounded more like preventive war, not preemption. What’s the difference? • Preemption involves the use of force to stop an imminent threat. • Prevention involves the use of force to stop potential or future threats.
Preemption vs. Prevention (con’t) What does current international law allow? • International law allows preemptive military action in self defense – if the threat of attack is imminent. • Preventive war in the absence of an imminent threat is NEVER permitted and is considered an act of aggression.
The Bush Doctrine and Iraq • The invasion of Iraq in March, 2003, was the only application of the Bush Doctrine.
The Bush Doctrine and Iraq • Rationale for war was based on threat posed by Iraq’s WMD and its supposed support for terrorism ... • … but Iraq hadn’t attacked the U.S. and wasn’t threatening to attack the U.S.
Never mind… 60 Minutes Interview with "Curve Ball" 3/13/11