The occasion of September 11, 2001, has established a turning point in the mode in which the majority of the countries observe global security intimidations, particularly intimidations that are related to terrorism and the propagation of weaponries of huge destruction. United States Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld represented this interpretation when he specified that the whole thing had improved and that the United States now professed all the possible intimidations differently. Therefore, from the perspective of the United States, previous plans of repression of intimidations, despite state or non-state, were just not adequate. Other countries, for example, India, also sensed that it was time to take further strict actions against these terrorist-related threats. These activities comprise the request of forced mediation, in which a country threatens its opponent with the usage of its force or takes a partial military act to attain its purposes and aims (Pyszczynski, Solomon, & Greenberg, 2003).
After 9/11, the chance of the usage of military and the threat of the using of military forces have progressively become a part of the United States administration’s range of the strategy decisions, Concurrently, other countries also follow the United States to contract with persistent security fears, particularly terrorism and nationalist insurgencies. These countries, including India and Great Britain, reinforced a further powerful strategy against the foundations of these intimidations. Other states, for example, Russia, Kazakhstan, and Thailand, have deemed this as a chance to take actions further powerfully against their particular core militant activities.
American government before 9/11 was made by the Republican party, small countries and post-Cold War majestic triumphalism related to Ronald Reagan. This, consecutively, had triggered a huge struggle by the Democratic party, mainly linked with Bill Clinton to hint back a mainstream by the strategic adjustments while preserving a promise to the justice and internationalism.
The furthermost obvious variation in the United States foreign strategy is its emphasis on the defensive act, not just the preventive act. This is also recognized as the President Bush Doctrine.
Countries often use preventive attacks in conflict when they distinguish that an opponent’s act is prominent.
When the United States attacked Iraq in March 2003, it widened its strategy to include defensive conflict. The Bush government has expressed to the public (mistakenly) that Saddam Hussein’s government had nuclear substances and would soon be capable of making atomic arms. Bush’s administration imprecisely tense Hussein into Al Qaeda (again mistakenly), and he thought that the attack was partly to stop Iraq from providing terrorists with nuclear weaponries. Hence, the Iraqi attack was to stop certainly apparent but not obviously an evident occasion (Landau et al., 2004).
The United States had to protect Pakistan’s provision beforehand, attacking Pakistan’s bordering country, Afghanistan, to combat the Taliban, which intelligence has said was an Al-Qaeda follower. The subsequent association with Pakistan and its leader, Pervez Musharraf, was uncooperative. Musharraf’s stalemates with that of Taliban and Al-Qaeda frontrunner Osama bin Laden were dubious, and his promise to the War on Terrorism appeared to be unenthusiastic (Wright, 2006).
Certainly, at the start of 2011, intelligence agencies exposed that bin Laden was hiding somewhere in Pakistan and deceptively had been for more than five years. American special ops teams killed bin Laden in May, then his simple existence in Pakistan caused further uncertainty on that state’s promise to the war against terrorism.
The United States has also found an anxious friend in Hamid Karzai, leader of post-assault Afghanistan. Karzai is recognized to be a corrupt leader, but he stands for American existence in Afghanistan.
Those circumstances are evocative of American associations in the Cold War. The U.S. has reinforced such disliked presidents as the Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam and the Shah of Iran, just as they were anti-socialist.
References
Landau, M. J., Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., Cohen, F., Pyszczynski, T., Arndt, J., … Cook, A. (2004). Deliver us from evil: The effects of mortality salience and reminders of 9/11 on support for President George W. Bush. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(9), 1136–1150.
Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., & Greenberg, J. (2003). In the wake of 9/11: Rising above the terror. American Psychological Association.
Wright, L. (2006). The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the road to 9/11. Alfred a Knopf Incorporated.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
