Category: War on Terror

The announcement of the war on terror drove substantial change, which was explicitly unsuccessful for various reasons. Mainly as this war had led to the humiliation of those falsely accused, as well as causing great fear among the American public, making it a possible cause towards the increase of xenophobia and racism globally, more so in America. Furthermore, the campaign had single-handedly massacred thousands of innocent civilians in the name of ‘democracy’, consequently contributing to more harm rather than good.

Essentially, it could be argued that the war had failed in regards to how Bush presented the campaign. Since 9/11, some would suggest that the terrorist threat had been exaggerated. (Haas and Hird, 2009). Although 19 men were initially involved, the campaign that Bush introduced targeted countries, rather than individuals, therefore, naming the campaign a ‘war on terror’ had implied that the perpetrators were state actors. Regardless, it would be inaccurate to describe it as such. Although the war in Afghanistan had been somewhat justified in the context of the war on terror, on the grounds of the Taliban regime endorsing Al-Qaeda, the general campaign had been exaggerated, therefore triggering fear into American citizens, thus, the majority would irrationally support the hostile foreign policies introduced under the Bush doctrine (Hetherington and Suhay, 2011), despite the fact that the wars were more or less related to national interest rather than democratic principles. This fear was common among the American public, and it may have been a reason as to why there was a surge in Islamophobic attacks, particularly after the war on terror had been announced, as well as the surge in anti-Muslim sentiment in the media (Ghazali, 2008). This is a potential cause for the increase in hate crime, with over 400 Islamaphobic hate crimes in the US, just weeks after 9/11 (Byers and Jones, 2007).

As previously discussed that the presentation of the campaign led to more consequences, another failure of the war on terror that will be discussed is the human rights abuses that took place, which was arguably driven by the exaggeration of the campaign. As there were over 660 suspects arrested (National Security Division of Terrorist Related Convictions, 2016), it is clear that innocent citizens would have been inevitably implicated. Despite this, it could also be argued that the increase in arrests led to large scale attacks being prevented. As indicated in the case of Lyman Farris, who was arrested for giving away sensitive information away to Al-Qaeda (Justice.gov, 2019). Therefore due to the increased security precautions, another potential terrorist attack was prevented.

Yet, the increase in arrests does not mean that all suspects are guilty. The majority were detained without constitutional protection and a fair trial (Human Rights Watch, 2017). Furthermore, extreme human rights abuses took place, as shown through the methods which were used, such as waterboarding, sleep deprivation and further extreme tortures, which were endorsed by the US government. This was proven when all detainees of the prison claimed that some torture took place, over several years. Five detainees who were interviewed also claimed that they lost consciousness during interrogation methods exposing the inhumane conditions of the prison. In protest to the abuse, detainees also participated in a hunger strike to speak out against the conditions that they were kept in, however, there was no change (Lacopino and Xenakis, 2011). These protests underpins the extreme nature of the prison, therefore, the war on terror was a failure, as it strayed away from the international laws and its very own constitution, as well as its own standards of dealing with such issues, with the very barbaric methods which they vowed to destroy, showing the hypocritical nature of the US. Additionally, 7 out of the 779 men who were taken to the prison were actually convicted. 5 of these men only pleaded guilty due to being manipulated, believing that they may get an early release if they confess (Amnesty.org.uk, 2018). Of course, it may be the case that they were tricked into a false confession. As a result, citizens’ rights have been violated, with no regard to the American law and constitution being applied, as it is clear when the US government referred to the Guantanamo Bay detainees as “unlawful combatants.” therefore implying that the geneva conventions and human rights laws do not apply to these detainees (Chlopak, 2011).

Of course, due to the constant targets, arrests and human rights abuses as discussed previously, as well as the foreign wars, there was a rise in Anti-Americanism, particularly in Iraq (Haynes, 2005). Firstly, the belief that America respects the sovereignty of other states had disintegrated when the US invaded Iraq in 2003, introducing the law to legalise torture against Iraqi citizens. As well as affecting Iraq, it had also affected the US in the manner that they had gained a poor reputation internationally, having broken the Geneva conventions of 1907 and 1949 which was in no way justified. It was brought to the attention of many in power, particularly to Bush, that there was no evidence that Iraq was involved in the surge of terrorist campaigns, thus they should not have been held accountable for 9/11, especially since Al-Qaeda had already been named as responsible. This is apparent in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) letter, that the US government produced containing why they chose to invade Iraq, the word ‘terrorism’ was not mentioned. Instead, it was stated that Iraq breached a disarmament deal. Therefore meaning that they had believed that Saddam Hussein, the former Iraqi president, was holding weapons of mass destruction, which the US military did not find (Roberts, 2005). Having established that the Iraq war was not justified at least to the extent that the Afghanistan war was, yet the US remained to paint themselves as incorruptible, particularly the Neo-Conservatives, who not only agreed with the invasion of Iraq but found it commendable and ‘an act of liberation’ (McWIlliams and Piatrowski, 2009). However, indeed this was clearly not true, the only element of freedom that the US truly brought to the Iraqi citizens was “freedom of rape, freedom of nudity and the freedom of humiliation.” (Danner, 2004, cited in McWilliams and Piatrowski, 2009).

However, despite the failure in the Iraq war, it could be argued that there was some form of success in the Afghanistan war, as it is arguably a justifiable war, unlike the invasion of Iraq (Bleiker, 2003). Furthermore, a successful democratic election took place in the year of 2004. This shows that elements of democracy spread to Afghanistan due to the war, ensuring that some parts of the Taliban regime collapsed under Bush. These events which took place show that the war on terror had arguably some elements of success. (Roberts, 2005).

Yet, despite the relative success in the Afghanistan war, both wars could still be considered as an act of ‘recolonisation’, As Robert Baer states, “…They see it as neo-colonialism.” (Cited in Rai, 2006). This is particularly clear in Iraq, when the US set a permanent military base, demonstrating their power on Iraqi soil as well as claiming control over the economy of Iraq. This shows that the war on terror was not only military based in terms of ‘protecting the American citizens’, but for economic gains, and arguably to assert power politics in the international arena, with actions mirroring colonisation. (McWIlliams and Piatrowski, 2009). Therefore making the war on terror a failure in terms of morality, proving their colonising nature. Moreover demonstrating that the international arena is truly immoral when it comes to personal gain for the country, particularly in terms of influence, as argued generally by realists. (Donnelly, 2000). The US also has an anarchical nature, where they seem to act in an authoritative manner. Therefore, these foreign wars and human rights abuses prove the fact that the US only seems to be acting in their own national interest, with no regard to the welfare of other states, yet put on a facade and become the ‘saviour’ when different states are committing the same acts, suggesting that America failed in the campaign in terms of morality.

Overall, the evidence suggests that the war on terror was a failure, particularly in terms of the lives that were taken in the name of protecting America’s national interest, without regarding other states and their welfare. It was also a failure in terms of morality, with the constant need to demonstrate power politics internationally, without following their own constitutional principles. The consequences of the war on terror are still taking place, and it is deceptive to argue that the war on terror had improved some aspects of the world, as Afghanistan and Iraq are still paying the price for the war to this day, as well as the ex-detainees of Guantanamo Bay. Moreover, it is clear that despite efforts, the act of terrorism was not reduced, and it is a remaining threat. Therefore it is questionable whether the war on terror was truly worth the damage which was done in some parts of the world.

Conceptualized because of the various ways in which mediums have visualized, recorded and represented aspects of terrorism. The CNN effect established a twenty-four-seven news cycle which entirely covered the first Gulf war. This represents mediatization because the ability of real-time communications technology compels governments to immediately respond based on human suffering portrayed on the television. Mediatization has significantly affected the War on Terror because the perpetual commentary has created mediated responses that have undeniably bled into our everyday engagement with society. It is these responses that feed into and shape the trajectory of the War on Terror.

Reese and Lewis assert that frames are ‘organizing principles that are socially shared and persistent over time, that work symbolically to meaningfully structure the social world.’ In accordance with George Lakoff’s definition of frames as thoroughly political and metaphorical, I recognize the importance of frames operating in the political process as a tool of analysis affecting the way in which the public perceive and interpret political agendas and other content that structure our world and create meaning for us.

The Bush administration in the aftermath of 9/11 demonstrate the affects framing has on the War on Terror. Jason Ralph outlines American Exceptionalism as in a state of a emergency, exceptions to the law are granted to a sovereign power to use for protecting the general public. Bush exercised this to a great extent because he architected the War on Terror by framing a binary discourse which categorized terrorists as the ‘evil other,’ the United States leading enemy. My contention is that under these circumstances the Bush administration used language to purposely construct a fear-infected frame which thereby established a master narrative creating and reflecting new identities. Bush embraced a rhetoric distinguishing between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ which has serious traction to the War on Terror because this defines the separation between who ‘we’ are and who ‘they’ are. The American Exceptionalism myth proclaims America’s chosen mission is to annihilate evil, coupled with the War on Terror, the concept has become depoliticized as the primary mission for America. Theological language was conveyed which greatly influenced the public’s perception of Bush as a ‘god like’ figure to destroy evil. In this regard, it was articulated that if the nation wanted to defat the enemy, unconditional trust to the president was necessary.

Corey Robin formulates a compelling argument on fear because by claiming the circulation of fear has cemented the knowledge that evil does exist, I can argue that Bush framed the War on Terror by constructing a new enemy. Furthermore, the Bush administration constructed a new environment which Naomi Klein defines as disaster capitalism; using a framework of disaster for their own actions. Brian Mussumi argues that disaster and crises have increasingly corresponded to a growing state security apparatus. Disaster capitalism has generated a network that engages a seamless nexus between civilian emergencies to military solutions, highly distinctive policies which are ineffective solutions to the War on Terror. This is evident with the Anti-Terror doctrine in the United States and Canada which include emergency responses as part of its jurisdiction. I can assert that this culture of fear has constituted a state of permanent emergency which has induced capricious decision making. The Harper administration added four new terrorism offences to the 2012 Canadian Anti-Terrorism act responding to Martin Coutre-Roule, a Canadian who converted to Islam in 2013 and was recruiting ISIS supporters— though this legislation was highly disputed because it was entirely based on punishment. Despite the prevailing criticism and the lack of public documentation on the case of Martin Coutre-Roule, the terrorist attacks in October 2014 enabled the government to re-frame the War on Terror in a highly fearful and politicized climate leaving the public with no choice but to support Bill C51 in 2015. Similar to Bush, Harper personalized the campaign of terror against Canadians by asserting ISIS as the most dangerous enemy the world has ever faced. Harper used ideological discourse to frame the War on Terror which assumed all outsiders as potential terrorists. It is my contention that the ambiguity of the bill was unconsciously institutionalized illegitimately, exacerbating the very tension between national security and liberty. The Canadian Security Intelligence Services mandate was radically adjusted to include illegal measures, and a speech offence which is a highly counterproductive to the national security agenda. It is my proposal that state authorities must channel their focus to protecting its civilians under the national security agenda, rather than harnessing the everyday tools of data collection to root out potential terror threats as an invasion of privacy, and vehemently widening the scope of military presence.

The combination of disaster capitalism and the pre-emptive mode allows for ‘effects without causes.’ The notion of ‘effects without causes’ explains the uncertainty and unpredictability of terrorism, thus making it problematic to cease an attack before it occurs. The Bush administration legitimized pre-emptive warfare for predicting potential threats, though, Marrsumi argues, this shifts the mode of thinking, time and space of decision making. Nonetheless, terrorism becomes heavily linked to the state security apparatus, though in an uncertain decision-making environment, policies are not logically laid out.

It is significant to note the approach the Canadian government took for legislating Bill C51 considering it was passed without adequate evidence. I contend that in a perpetual culture of fear, public authorities can manipulate subjects in society to champion for its policy proposals which in part overlook the lack of sufficient evidence. However, the dilemma policy which Wirtz outlines is compelling because when determining appropriate responses to a threat perceived with limited certainty, policymakers adopt an ‘all or nothing response’ or a ‘wait and see’ attitude. Indication and warning practices are not reliable because these approaches do not generate event predications. The volatile and unforeseeable nature of terrorist threats fuel the the War on Terror, profoundly diffusing the narrative.

In conclusion, modern terrorism is highly dynamic. The world is constantly being saturated with information which the media and powerful officials are employing methods of framing and mediatization to the War on Terror. In turn this has ushered in several competing perspectives, diffusing the concept of the War on Terror, a major challenge for policy makers because terrorist threats are not certain and predicable. I argued that the explosion of new media technologies has magnified an assemblage of networks which the language and frames used to determine terrorism has spurred an environment of fear. I showed how the Bush administration framed the attacks of 9/11 in a way that established a narrative by defining the enemy, the victim, and an alarming setting. Additionally, I showed how similar approaches were used by the Harper administration for justifying Bill C51. I anticipate an increased state of fear amongst North America, and globally, considering the extent of terrorist networks dominating and engaging with our everyday online activities. We must be aware of the manipulating nature of the media and methods of framing in which we perceive and interpret the existing content in the world.

In this analysis, I develop a definition of the biometric state based on Muller’s interpretation, constituting, ‘securitization, governing through risk, and the widespread application of biometric technology and surveillance, within the context of specific assumptions about liberty, security, and identity.’ It is my contention, the biometric state emerged as a new mode of governance in the United States following September 11, 2001 (9/11). The biometric state is playing a role in the War on Terror by attempting to unify a network of power and surveillance technology and strategies in the to prevent a future strike. To illustrate this i show the surveillance of mobility is not limited to the state, but also is practiced in both private security firms and the homeland security citizen. Foucault calls this a new non-disciplinary power, for example, virtual borders in the United States are manifesting the biometric state to secure mobility, and govern and mange everyday life. Thus virtual borders are penetrating spaces of civil society and engaging the homeland security citizen in the war against terrorism due to a survivor society— risk society is created.

The first section serves as the theoretical arm of the paper in which I explore Foucaldian thought and Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon to discover the connection to American security post 9/11. In the second section, I illustrate the logic of preemption and preventive warfare the Bush administration justified as the main strategy to fighting the war against terrorism. To advance my argument, I show the emergence of the homeland security citizen within a new survivor society. I evaluate the notion of ‘target of opportunity,’ watchful politics, and the precautionary principle that are colonizing areas of everyday life and investigate a new sense of sovereign— the visual sense. In the final section, I turn to the rise of the homeland security market and argue public and private companies are overlapping in a quest to enhance security apparatus and increasingly relying on algorithmic calculations for preventing future terror attack.

Foucault

Foucault plays a central role in this analysis and will be referred to throughout the paper as a constructive framework. The Foucaldian sense of governmentally combines both government and rationality in defining the “art of government” which assume a common desire to rule. Foucault introduced biopolitics as a new form of power in a neoliberal society much like the United States where power is decentralized, and citizens participate in self-governance via the marketplace. Under these circumstances, power is not only distributed top-down, rather is engaging in various control techniques that include forms of social control in disciplinary institutions as well as forms of knowledge. In short, biometrics refer to the measurement of life and specifically, the biological characteristics of an individual that constitute its identity. For Foucault, biometrics is an example of ‘biopower’ — a form of power managing the biological existence of individuals and populations. Biopolitics are various mechanisms deployed to measure the politics of life and bodies. I argue soveirngty is not lost, rather is continuing to evolve in which bodies become the sovereign sense. In a demanding information society and the War on Terror, the accessibility and widespread use of biometric technology, is a looming mechanism for security and is embodying a deeper form of governance.

Panoptic Surveillance

The panopticon— put forward by philosopher Jeremey Bentham, is a useful metaphor to analyze the role of the biometric state in the War on Terror because although it represents a prison, it is a system of control and comparable to contemporary security practice in the United States. In Bentham’s panopticon, the observer is constantly watching the subjects and they are aware of this; though, for the observer to internalize surveillance to become a new reality, subjects are required to accept these regulations. In this regard, power is gained from observing knowledge by monitoring the population. The panopticon metaphor enabled Foucault to explore systems of social control and the relationship between the government and its citizenry, in turn conceptualized power and knowledge as a circular process in society and noted the efficiency of power enforced through mechanisms of observation. Accordingly, in the aftermath of 9/11, the Bush administration— the powerful observer, sought new objects of knowledge to fight the War against Terrorism by calling upon private actors in the marketplace to enhance surveillance and control. For Foucault, he acknowledges the danger of the pantoptican because the observer is manufacturing individuals to a particular social order. Given this, the biometric state is ubiquitously deploying surveillance technology that is penetrating urban spaces and institutions to mange the totality of the population . Unlike subjects in the pantoptican that are aware of constant surveillance, American citizens are at times aware of surveillance; however, are not usually, because the biometric state deploy surveillance in spheres of everyday life that is justified in the War on Terror.

Panoptic Paradox: Homeland Security Citizen

Traditional methods of surveillance and control focused on automation and networking of technologies, albeit the biometric state is diluting traditional theories of surveillance because the use of biometric technology is governing both the mobility and enclosure of bodies. For Lyon, he conceptualizes this surveillance as a method of social control; however, it is not surprising that in an age of emerging interconnectivity where network systems are collecting vast amount of data, neoliberal societies are turning to social sorting as a mechanism of surveillance.

Pre-emption

In the aftermath of 9/11, American society underwent a state of permanent emergency that required sweeping action to prevent a future strike. To illustrate this, the aftermath of 9/11 fostered a state of emergency that fostered preemption to allow military-like responses to civilian issues, thus the Bush administration used disaster as a framework to justify its actions. “Threats must be elevated before they even materialize,” powerfully spoken by President Bush that reflect the doctrine of preemption. Preemptive strikes are based on a predetermined and inevitable future that is distancing the need for evidence in an effort to block accusations of irrationally and dissent.Thus the population is compelled to look to the President as their salvation. Despite the magnitude of 9/11, Bush announced citizens must remain shopping and continue to engage in everyday activities as the state will protect the nation, this is termed, disaster capitalism. The notion of a preventable future exists in the ‘National Security Strategy’ document in 2002 as it explicitly writes, ‘attacks can be prevented, the War on Terror is finite, and global terrorism can be defeated.’ The debate between security and liberty is amplified in this regard because pre-emptive logic permits prevention striking despite evidence of a coming attack, and in the biometric state where surveillance technology is ubiquitous and unregulated, acting with certainty to a threat that is unforeseen is unlikely to yield inaccurate predictions. Thus, the role of the biometric state is significantly powerful in fighting the War on Terror because surveillance is not limited to the security apparatus, but also is operating in social spaces and institutions that are controlling, tracking, and modifying behaviour. This is precisely the problem Orwell articulated, the fear of transparency between the state and its citizenry, though, I contend this symbolizes the United States’s security assemblage after 9/11 that complete reorganized in its mission for increasing surveillance security measures beyond traditional soveirngty. In short, security assemblage is termed as a set of loosely linked systems that are proliferating across state institutions and non-state institutions, albeit unevenly. It is a mistake to view this assemblage in leu of the state apparatus, but rather reinforcing one another, much like Foucault’s work on the relationship between power and knowledge.

Survivor Society

It is my contention American society following 9/11 created an environment of inevitable attacks, in which inevitably is dominating the common mode of thinking. As a result, American citizens are increasingly adapting too, and reconfiguring into a survivor society. The rhetoric of survivor society is amplified through hyper-individualism, regarding identical to public participation in the marketplace and additionally I describe as disaster capitalism. Under these circumstances, the neoliberal model is embodied as a new response to war and is enabling the possibility for individuals to wage on future attacks. However, an atmosphere of uncertainty and fear is emergent as a predetermined future with inevitable outcomes is only visible by a privileged group of public and private elites.

Social control in a survivor society is enhancing state power, for example, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) launched the ‘Ready Campaign’ in 2003 that was designed to prepare Americans to respond to terrorist attacks. This is an ultimate effort to engage the population in fighting the war against terrorism and simultaneously fuelling the survivor society. A data company, Town compass LLC, conceived in Seattle, published a ‘Terrorism Survival’ package that included a database for ‘Most Wanted Terrorists.’ Similar to the Ready Campaign, this firm is marketing personal products for citizens to access online and freely download. It is my contention the Ready Campaign and Town Compass LLC represent governing through risk, using the precautionary principle— an approach to risk management that is developed in circumstances of uncertainty and in this case, terrorism. A risk society is created by governing through risk, thus, in the War on Terror, risks are ‘manufactured’ as Beck argues, and cannot accurately measure the level of threat because the threat is uncertain.. For Aradau and Van Munster, precautionary risk is striving to govern the ungovernable, which is demonstrated in the preemptive logic of the Bush doctrine. The pre-assessment of risk and pre-emptive logic is fundamental to governing through risk and is helping to form the emerging biometric state.

Research ANd Development Corporation (RAND) is an American think tank and critical to the War on Terror as a political player embracing neoliberalism and a branch to the government, its ability to promote active preparedness to the nation is the foundation for U.S. security policy. For example, a publication in RAND’s homeland security documents, ‘Individual Preparedness and Response to Unconventional Terrorist Attacks,’ provided reference cards for Americans to prepare and play a role in the War on Terror. The notion of the survivor society is reinforced as these cards are framed counterintuitively for citizens to bear responsibly in the War against terrorism. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is an advanced technological branch of the U.S Department of Defense and investigates new technologies for national security. The role of the biometric state in the War on Terror largely widened the scope of technology for surveillance, for example, Total Information Awareness (TIA) emerged as a mass surveillance program in 2003 and was founded on the logic of preemption and predictive powers. Despite immense scepticism and criticism overtly rejecting models that seemingly predict future outcomes, the biometric state fostered a new form of intelligence-gathering— algorithmic calculations, as the solution to the War on Terror. Regardless of TIA shutting down, it was the initial project of its kinda, and to an extent, benchmarking the performance of public and private biometric surveillance companies.

Question: Outline the history of and Australia’s involvement in the war on terrorism in Iraq and Syria?

The new war on terrorism in Iraq and Syria has been a long and complex battle with multiple enemy forces, who are most often indistinguishable from civilians. Australia has engaged in this war on terrorism due to varying alliances with a multitude of Nations. Australia’s level of support for the war has varied throughout the years and recently has diminshed due to the decline of Islamic Fundamentalists such as ISIS and the Taliban. This has brought the war on terrorism almost to a close within recent months.

The war on Terrorism in Iraq and Syria has been congealed by the presence of Extremist Islamic Fundamentalists such as the Taliban and more recently (and more specifically to this war) ISIS which have been growing in strength since 1999. The beginnings of the Islamic State in the middle east began with the corroboration of two leaders, namely Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and Osama Bin Laden (who was the leader of Al-Qaeda at the time.) Bin laden funded Zarqawi to begin a training camp called The Organisation for Monotheism and Jihad which after a few years and a multitude of rebrandings it became known as the Islamic state.[footnoteRef:1] Their aim as Islamic Fundamentalists was to have a centrality of the Islamic religion in government and society and they will use violence if necessary, to implement this ideology. “And slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter… and fight them until fitnah is no more, and religion is for Allah.”[footnoteRef:2] It is this section within the Quran that is one of the main passages exploited by Islamic fundamentalists as justification for their extremely grim acts. These include the slaughter of innocent civilians as well as a multitude of offensives to capture land in Iraq and Syria. It was such acts that prompted the United States of America to intervene against the extremists on 15 June 2014.[footnoteRef:3] [1: History of ISIS, Since 911, Cambridge, Viewed on 1/4/19, https://since911.com/explore/history-isis#jump_time_item_540] [2: The Holy Qu ‘Aran 2:191] [3: Department of Defence Authorises War On Terror, U.S Department of Defence, Viewed on 2/4/19 https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/603569/]

Australia’s involvement in the war on terrorism, known as Operation OKRA, began in August 2014 to aid the U.S led International Coalition to Counter Islamic State[footnoteRef:4]. This was in part due to Australia’s participation in a multitude of treaties, such as ANZUS[footnoteRef:5], which is a military alliance originally concerned with the Pacific Region, as well as, more broadly AUSCANNZUKUS (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States.) Then later, on the 9 September 2015, Prime Minister Tony Abbott declared that Australia would increase its commitment to the Coalition by sending military planes to Iraq as well as expanding into Syria.[footnoteRef:6] This included a mid-air refuelling plane which is the KC-30A tanker and an airborne early warning plane known as the E-7A Wedgetail.[footnoteRef:7] In terms of Australian Troops in the war on Terror, there are three main Groups in Iraq and Syria Fighting Against the extremists. The first and most numerous is Task Group Taji (TG Taji) with approximately 300 personnel stationed to it. Positioned northwest of Baghdad, it is a non-combative role in which their main goal is to train local Iraqi soldiers to help them to become more efficient and ultimately take responsibility for their own nation’s security.[footnoteRef:8] The TG Taji became fully operational in May 2015 and is a joint venture with the New Zealand defence force. Another facet of Australia’s Personnel involvement in the war on ISIS is the Air Task Group (ATG) with 150 Australian’s stationed there. They are responsible for the aircraft mentioned above primarily the KC-30A and the E-7A wedgetail and have been instrumental in the Coalition’s airborne offensive on ISIS. Moreover, 80 of Australia’s most elite soldiers have been stationed to the Special Operations Task Group (SOTG) who are engaging in combat against these Islamic extremists. The SOTG has completed three rotations coming predominantly from the 2nd Commando Regiment since their initial deployment in September 2014. However, much of their activity throughout the course of the war remains classified as “Defence will not comment on the movement of personnel in the Middle East or the conduct of activities of the SOTG for operational security reasons.”[footnoteRef:9]

More recently, the war on ISIS and extremist Islamic Fundamentalists has been coming to a close with Daesh militants losing territory and dominance in recent months. Australia would have played a large role in this decline as they are one of the most present coalition nations in Iraq and Syria. Currently, ISIS has lost all of their territory and strongholds once held within Syria and are on a downward slope with their presence in Iraq[footnoteRef:10]. This decline in the extremist’s power has been somewhat due to Australian intervention most obviously seen with the achievements of the SOTG. In conjunction with the Iraqi troops trained by TG Taji the SOTG has seen the destruction of some 50 ISIS strong holds, the seizing of 16 heavy machine guns and a multitude of improvised explosive devices[footnoteRef:11]. They, furthermore, with the collaboration of the ATG have authorised more than 150 air strikes on the Islamic Extremists. These achievements of the Australian Defence Force prove the pivotal nature of Operation OKRA so far on the war against terrorism. [10: ISIS Fast Facts and Timeline, CNN, Viewed on 3/4/19 https://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/08/world/isis-fast-facts/index.html] [11: Australian Defence Force support to Iraqi Forces in Ramadi, Department of Defence, Viewed on 2/4/19 https://news.defence.gov.au/2015/12/31/australian-defence-force-support-to-iraqi-forces-in-ramadi]

In summation, Australia has been involved in the war on Terrorism in Iraq and Syria in a multitude of very effective task groups which have been instrumental in bringing the dimunition of the presence of Extremist Islamic Fundamentalists such as ISIS. The war began with the United States’ decision to intervene encouraging Australia to become involved through a multitude of treaties. The Australian Defence Force is contributing over 600 personnel to the war currently within three main task groups. Operation OKRA has been critical in the fight on the extremists and is most likely to conclude shortly due to the diminishing power of Daesh.

Bibliography

1. History of ISIS, Since 911, Cambridge, Viewed on 1/4/19, https://since911.com/explore/history-isis#jump_time_item_540
2. The Holy Qu ‘Aran 2:191
   1. Annotation: I chose this source as it is the holy quaran the religious text for the religion of islam. It therefore is a first hand source and therefore give an insight in to the Islamic religion and way of thinking.
3. Department of Defence Authorises War On Terror, U.S Department of Defence, Viewed on 2/4/19 https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/603569/
   1. Annotation: I chose this source as it was published by the department of defence of the Australian government thus making it a legitimate and reliable source to determine the Activities of Australian soldiers in Vietnam.
4. Syria: Australian Military Operations, Parliament of Australia, Viewed on 2/4/19 https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1718/SyriaMilitaryOps
5. The Australia, New Zealand and United States Security Treaty (ANZUS Treaty), 1951 , Office of The Historian, Viewed on 2/4/19 https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/anzus
6. Syria: Australian Military Operations, Parliament of Australia, Viewed on 2/4/19 https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1718/SyriaMilitaryOps
7. Operation Okra, Air Force, Viewed on 3/4/19 https://www.airforce.gov.au/operations/middle-east/operation-okra
8. ISIS Fast Facts and Timeline, CNN, Viewed on 3/4/19 https://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/08/world/isis-fast-facts/index.html
   1. Annotation: I selected this source as it is from a reputable news source CNN. It also gave me a good general background on the events of the war on terrorism and the organisation of ISIS.
9. Special Operation Task Group, Australian Department of Defence, Viewed on 3/4/19 http://www.defence.gov.au/Operations/Okra/SOTG.asp
10. Task Group Taji, Australian Department of Defence, Viewed on 3/4/19 www.defence.gov.au/operations/okra/TaskGroupTaji.asp
11. Australian Defence Force support to Iraqi Forces in Ramadi, Department of Defence, Viewed on 2/4/19 https://news.defence.gov.au/2015/12/31/australian-defence-force-support-to-iraqi-forces-in-ramadi

On November 11, 2001, many lives changed forever; and not just for the US citizens, but for the rest of the world as well. The war on terrorism had begun and would not end anytime soon. The US and Britain invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, which initiated the war on terrorism in 2001. During their time in the Middle East, the two countries eliminated many terrorist threats and made the world a safer place.

After 9/11, the US, as well as the entire world, was in shock. Action was needed and President George W. Bush took that action. Iraq and Afghanistan were countries who had the biggest strongholds for the extremist who attacked the US, so that is where the Americans attacked. There was also evidence of the development of mass destruction weapons in the area. This would have meant many more 9/11’s, not just in the US, but around the world. Bush’s team was made up of people who supported him and were part of this foreign policy team. The members included: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Richard Armitage, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz. Each wanted to show the world that no one gets away with hurting America, and they also wanted to make sure no one could hurt the US, or any of its allies, if they could do something to stop it.

Gen. Joseph P. Hoar warned that the operation was risky and most likely unnecessary. He was quoted as saying it was “too little too late” for the two countries that were being raided. He remarked, “the problem wasn’t military, it was political.” He said this because we didn’t understand the amount of change that was needed politically in order to accomplish a positive movement in the countries. If the US was going to go in with the military, it should have been done a long time before they actually came in. By the time the US stepped in, nothing would have changed, even if they had bombed every city there. The US needed to help implement a new government that would help the citizens, and build a new Middle East as the world once knew it was, but unfortunately, that is not what was done. Morton Halperin warned it would increase the terrorist threat, and she focused on the citizens of the countries and how they felt they had zero part to do with 9/11. Would they support the US after seeing their friends and family killed by bombs dropped by the US? Or would they turn to hate the US? The answer was hate. Halperin felt with military action it would only add to the number of radical extremists in the Middle East . The extremists groups could easily recruit people who had their family killed by US bombs. However, she also asked, “What was the next step after military action?” She pointed out there was no political plan for Iraq and Afghanistan, if the military action worked, and she wanted a plan to implement a government that would help citizens and allow the country to get back on its feet.

Just as important was how the everyday American citizens thought about the war on terriorism. The immediate public support was almost 100%. People believed, as the most powerful country in the world, the US should make the ones who hurt us and our loved ones pay. However, as time passed, public support slowly dwindled. People believed that we were using too many resources and we already killed the ones responsible for the attacks. This resulted in an electoral shift, which was readily apparent when the Republicans lost the presidency to Democratic nominee Barack Obama.

Before the war started, the UN had a meeting about the threat of the Middle East. The meeting ended when the UN, “implemented economic sanctions against Iraq and Afghanistan in order to, among other things, hinder the progress of its most lethal arm’s programs, including those for the development of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.” Since this meeting was happening, there was not just a national issue in the US with the Middle East , there was an international issue with events going on in the Middle East . Other countries saw what happened to the US and they did not want that to happen to them. The main supporter of the US was Britain, which isn’t surprising since Britain is our closest ally. However, other than them, other nations didn’t seem that eager to join in our fight. The countries in the UN put sanctions on Iraq, but offered very little help. The main reason is they did not want to make themselves targets for terrorist threats after what happened on September 11th to the United States. There was little opposition to the US and Britain using military force. “The leaders of France, Germany, Russia, and other countries objected to this buildup toward war.” They thought the war could be avoided and a democratic path was the way to go. However, no opposition was very serious where another country would place sanctions on us or declare war, so we didn’t think twice about the opposition. On the Iraq side, once the US took down Saddam Hussein, we looked for a way to implement a new democratic government into Iraq. The US implemented an “interim government” which put Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer in charge for the time being. There were votes for parliament and other major government roles, however, Iraq was missing a leader. That changed on April 6, 2005, when Iraq elected Jalal Talabani to become its first elected leader since the fall of Saddam Hussein. He served for two terms, and just like in the US, it was time for a new president. Fuad Masum was then elected as the second president since the fall of Saddam Hussein. However, he made some decisions which were seen as illegal by many government officials in Iraq, which was a main reason he only served one term. Finally, Iraq elected Barham Salih, who is the sitting president right now. However, as a whole since the US implemented the democratic government, Iraq has had pretty good presidents for the most part. Which is the main reason Iraq has made a 180 turn about and is heading in the right direction for a country who was in war with the United States of America for the good part of three years. Next on the Afghanistan said the turnaround was much faster than Iraq. As quick as a few months after 9/11, afghanistan agreed to an interim government in Bonn, Germany, in December 2001, with Hamid Karza being sworn is as the interim president. Then in 2004, the Loya Jirga of Afghanistan, which is the grand council, adopted a new constitution which make way for a strong presidency. Shortly after, Hamid Karzai won the presidency in the first open vote in more than 30 years in 2004. After that Afghanistan held the first parliament vote in more than 30 years as well, which warlords and strongmen are elected to. A few years later in 2009, Karzai won the presidency again over his opponent Abdullah. Abdullah pulled out after the second round which started a bunch of conservancies in the country. Later in 2012, to counter corruption in the country Tokyo, US, Germany, and UK pledge 16 billion dollars to new condition and aid in the country. In 2010 Karzai cant serve against since the term limit is two the country has its first real presidential election with two leaders in the race Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah. In a very heated and stressful presidential election Ashraf Ghani won the presidency and holds his place in office today. However, between the two, Iraq had a longer time getting to its new government, but it was more successful quicker than Afghanistan. Afghanistan’s government was set up faster however went through many different challenges than Iraq’s did. Asof now they both seem to be heading in the right direction in recreating the image of their once shameful nation.

In conclusion, the hard decisions the US made to stand up to the people whose plan killed 2,977 Americans, and hurt many more, changed the world. The decision to invade Iraq didn’t just make the US safer, it made the world safer. The US destroyed the ability for any major terrorist threats coming out of Iraq, which saved thousands of lives around the world. However, we didn’t leave Iraq out to dry after the war. We helped Iraq holds its first free election in 50 years, which has led to many great presidents for Iraq who have helped turn the country for the better. So the decision that was frowned upon by many people and countries, has saved thousands of lives, and has saved a country and its’ citizens.