Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks  in the United States (US), the relationship between the US and the Middle East has been characterised by hostility. The attack acted as the catalyst for US President George W. Bush to launch a “global war on terror” across the Middle East—a campaign that continues to devastate livelihoods today. It is evident from the increasing number of terrorist attacks, that the war on terror has failed in its objective of stopping terrorism. Nonetheless, instead of ending the war before the Middle East is completely destroyed, “the war on terror” is continuously used by US administrations to justify intervention abroad.

BUSH’S OBSCURE WAR ON TERROR

Despite receiving widespread support from the American people, the war on terror was constructed in a strategically ambiguous framework allowing the Bush administration flexibility in its application. All counterterrorism strategies require consideration of who the terrorist is, and the plan of prevention. However, in his many addresses to the public following 9/11, there is not a single statement by former President Bush that clearly outlines the qualifying factors determinate of a terrorist. Instead Bush states that, “our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them”. This vague scope deliberately broadened the scope of who terrorists are to encompass various groups at US discretion. When asked how the US was planning on combatting terrorism, Bush simply stated that he would “bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies”. Bush’s apparent blanket justification for intervention understandably poses a concern for other nations, as it permits what would otherwise breach the fundamental principle of state sovereignty.

Furthermore, moving beyond Bush’s ambiguous definition of the war on terror, academics have recognised the term itself to be nonsensical. Linguistically, a war on terror can only exist metaphorically. This is because terror is an abstract noun—it cannot be ended by a peace treaty or the use of weapons. In other words, there cannot be a literal war on terror. Rather, “terrorism is a tactic” through which the US  can obscure the difference between imperialist invasions and those that actually serve to combat terrorism. 

LEGACY OF THE WAR ON TERROR

Following Bush, the US administration under former President Barack Obama maintained the war on terror, albeit more subtly. The assassination of Al-Qaeda founder, Osama Bin Laden in 2013 led Obama to declare the end of a “global war on terror”. However, he stated that the US would continue to focus on “specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America,” once again constructing an ambiguous enemy. Despite such rhetoric, Obama authorised attacks into Iraq and Syria following the identification of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) as a terrorist group. Therefore, Obama’s presidency was characterised by a reformulation of the war on terror, intended to be more refined, but not intended to be stopped.

Nonetheless, if the war on terror had proven a successful enterprise, then perhaps such legal discrepancies could be overlooked on account of the bigger picture—that is, preventing terrorism. However, data trends demonstrate that US intervention has worsened terrorist attacks in South Asia, North Africa, and the Middle East. These regions accounted for 70 percent of terrorist attacks in the last 10 years. Rather disturbingly, despite its failure being made clear as early as 2004, the war on terror persisted under different US presidencies costing trillions in taxpayer money. The impact of such failure was predominantly felt by civilians of targeted countries, highlighted by the 21 million displaced peoples and war refugees, living in politically volatile countries and deprived of their civil liberties and human rights.

Additionally, the hypocrisy of the US war on terror is evident when considering that the US has a longstanding history of engaging in and supporting terrorist attacks. Examples include the US support of brutal regimes in Latin America and the Caribbean and supporting Israel’s bombing of the Gaza Strip. That is not to undermine the gravity of terrorism by comparing such attacks, but rather to contextualise the concept of who the terrorist is. Oftentimes, it is the US who initiates invasion and oppression into foreign territory. This surely limits any sympathy one has for the US, making it rather unsurprising that insurgency groups seek vengeance on their oppressor. After all, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”.

Despite the devastation that the war on terror has caused thus far, former President Donald Trump shifted the focus of the war on terror to Iran, even though Obama previously omitted Iran as a terror threat in his 2015 threat assessment.Trump and former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo maintained that Iran is a “safe haven for terrorism” because of its sponsoring of the Lebanese Hezbollah group. 

Rather ironically, during the Obama presidency, Iran acted as “America’s eyes on the ground” in the fight against Al-Qaeda and ISIL, providing both military and intelligence assistance. Such disregard of its allies not only delegitimises the war on terror, demonstrating the selective use of the war on terror by the US depending on the interests of the administration, but it also reaffirms the danger in the legal ambiguity of what—or who—the war on terror targets.

A CALL TO END THE WAR ON TERROR 

Following President Joe Biden’s electoral win at the end of 2020 and recent inauguration, there is a renewed demand for him to end the war on terror by denouncing the 2001 authorisation for use of force as outdated. Biden, however, is yet to address this issue. At best, the war on terror is a Sisyphean task, as the past has shown. It has no tangible success in stopping terrorism and has resulted in the loss of millions of innocent civilian lives and undue suffering in the US and Middle East alike. The question remains: how much more of the Middle East must be destroyed for the US to end the war on terror?  The hope for an end now lies with President Biden.

Habeebah is a postgraduate student at LSE specialising in Human Rights Law. She hopes to work internationally in various humanitarian projects, looking specifically at postcolonial structures in the third world.

LinkedIn