This article consists of 16 pages and 3096 words. In order to have full access to this article, email us at thedocumentco@hotmail.co.uk
Ref No: 3547
Introduction:
The word terrorism, in its broadest sense, is understood to represent the use of deliberate, indiscriminate violence to spread fear and terror in order to complete an ideological, political, or religious objective (White, 2002).
Terrorism is manifested in numerous forms, however, the kind which is prevalent globally today is propagated by religious extremist groups who use violence against peacetime targets and wage war against non-combatant civilians.
Since 2001, four terrorist groups have been extremely active and at large; Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Boko Haram, and the Islamic States of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
The United States has always been a prominent actor in international politics, and accordingly, the US foreign policy holds a strong position pertaining to global peace and security. The key foundation of US foreign policy is its presidential doctrines.
The US has invaded Iraq for the purpose of combating global terrorism under two separate presidential regimes (President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama), and in doing so, have amassed the collective attention of the political and academic worlds.
The key factors viewed behind US foreign policy during George W Bush and Barack Obama were their distinctive doctrines, although some believe that there was no such doctrine, rather it was the circumstances in Iraq which forced the US to take action.
Presidential doctrines are viewed as the main focus area of the present research. In the past few weeks, current US President Donald Trump has come up with a slightly different doctrine to counter the current global political situation in regards to terrorism.
Donald Trump re-confirmed America’s commitment to the mutual defence clause in Article 5 of the NATO treaty. Furthermore, Trump’s recent trip to the Middle East is viewed as the end of global terrorism.
So the key question here is how the past and present strategies of the US fit in with the legal framework in regards to sending troops in Iraq or otherwise using the law, politics, or criminal justice to counter terrorism under three different presidents’ leaderships.
Aim and Objectives
The central aim of the proposed research is a critical review of America’s response to terrorism in Iraq in the lights of Bush, Obama and Trump doctrines respectively.
This aim will be achieved with the help of the following specific objectives
- To analyse Bush doctrine and its legitimacy in dealing with terrorism in Iraq
- To analyse Obama doctrine and its legitimacy in dealing with terrorism in Iraq
- To analyse Trump doctrine and its legitimacy in dealing with terrorism in Iraq
- To compare and contrast Bush, Obama and Trump doctrines in dealing with terrorism in Iraq under the light of key events (the legal regimes adopted to counter terrorism and how effective they were in doing so).
Literature Review
According to Gullinane and Elliott (2014), every president administers and engages in a range of foreign policy activities, but certain dimensions of their actions and decision making indicate the role of their own personal beliefs and values.Critical Review of America’s Response to Terrorism in Iraq in the Light of Three Presidential Doctrines
Worley (2011) also suggests that presidents do not publish any official doctrine under their name; it is just an association based on a particular set of values or beliefs, which inevitably becomes the foundation of a country’s foreign policy and international relations.
America’s political ideology is traditionally based on five liberal mores; liberty, populism, egalitarianism, individualism and laissez-fair. These values have shaped the nation’s political structure (Lipset, 1996).
Critical Review of America’s Response to Terrorism in Iraq in the Light of Three Presidential Doctrines. During the Bush administration period, the key ideology was to make this world safe by ensuring that rogue states become democratic. Bush strongly believed that the major weapon to fight against terrorism, in the long run, is a democracy.
It has been widely believed by Bush and his supporters that rogue states are breeding grounds for terrorists, and democracy is the only weapon to help these states fight against terrorism.
Several international scholars such as Snow (2007) and Hook and Spanier (2010) have acknowledged that one of the key themes of the Bush Doctrine was a belief that it is the nation’s right to pro-actively deal with the threat of terrorism.
On the other hand, Robert (2003) claims that there are four key components of the Bush Doctrine; war prevention, maintaining the dominance of the USA in the world politics, importance of state’s domestic regime in determining its foreign policy and willingness to act unilaterally in the hour of need.
After the incident of 9/11, Bush shifted his all focus on fighting terrorism to protect America’s values of liberty, populism, egalitarianism, and individualism.
In the words of Owen and Johns (2006), when the decisions about the Iraq invasion were taken following the events of 9/11, Bush’s speeches emphasised bringing freedom to all the people in the world and he advocated that democracy is the only permanent solution for terrorism since democratic states always respect other states.
Thus, these two ideologies were the main focus of America’s foreign policy at the time. Bush also justified the invasion of Iraq with democratic beliefs that lie at the heart of the America’s political structure and foreign relations, and he claimed that making Iraq democratic would spread democracy in the whole of Middle East.
Barry (2004) suggests that Bush linked peace and security with democracy, and stressed on making rogue states democratic by using force to overcome the barriers in the path of democracy.
As Buchnan (2002) suggests, Bush openly declared war against terrorism at the global level when he announced: “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”. This suggests that in international politics, Bush was the one who took the lead to deal with the global threat of terrorism.
Dueck (2015) claimed that Obama’s doctrine was a real change in America’s foreign policy which led to enhancement of global peace and security since Obama’s doctrine was based on the idea of co-operation rather than war.
While looking at the five pillars of Obama’s foreign policy (making America safe, ending war against Al-Qaeda and Taliban, end of war against, rebuilding alliance with states and securing mass destruction weapon rogue states and terrorism) which are the key foundations of his doctrine, it appeared to be a brand new approach towards international relations.
However, putting this foreign policy into practice was the real challenge, as although Obama ended the war, it was only for a short period of time.
After the power of Saddam Hussain in 1979 Iraq has continuously been at war. Iraq was not only fighting with neighbouring countries but also facing a rebellion within the country. As Stearman (2007) states, before US invasion in Iraq, Iraq was facing a high level of political instability.
He further states that at least five Iraqi opposition groups did seek help from Britain and US to conduct freedom operations to help them end dictatorship and build a democratic government. During that period, Saddam Hussain was also accused of supporting Al-Qaeda (a terrorist group) and Palestinian bombers’ families financially.
With these justifications, the US took action in 2003 and with allied forces attacked Iraq without prior notice. In George W Bush period, the first invasion of Iraq started in 20th March 2003 when the US launched a surprise joint attack on Iraq which led to the fall of Saddam Hussain’s government.
This war continued for 7 years. In 2009 Obama, declared that he will withdraw heavy military force by the end August 2010, while still leaving 50,000 troops behind until the end of 2011…..
Recent Comments