‘The “War on Terror” marks a radical break with the traditions

of US foreign policy’

Introduction

There are many examiners who have stated that the War on Terror marked a radical
break with the traditions of U.S. foreign policy. As a result, there is a large belief that
George W. Bush’s policy was revolutionary. On the other hand, there are several
analysts who debate this notion by having declared that Bush’s goals resonate with the
most traditional themes in U.S. history. Consequently, in this essay, I will highlight and
evaluate these arguments. Firstly, I shall describe the meaning of the terms ‘terrorism’
and the ‘war on terror’. Secondly, I am going to analyse the continuities as well as
changes in war policy between the presidency of George W. Bush and previous
administrations. Thirdly, the United States policy towards Iraq since 1990 will be
examined and so will the ones toward Afghanistan since 2001. Lastly, I will explore the
United States’ promotion of democracy. Thereafter, I will write a conclusion which
proposes that the War on Terror was not such an out of the ordinary foreign policy.

What is the War on Terror?

The standard definition that describes terrorism is the unlawful use of premeditated
violence by a person along with an organised group against people plus property with
the intention of intimidating in addition to coercing societies as well as governments,
often for ideological purposes and political motivations (Lansford, 2009: 4). Tensions
rose between the United States and terrorist organisations during the 1990s as the U.S.
faced a number of terrorist attacks from groups affiliated to Osama Bin Laden’s
Al-Qaeda network (Bergen, 2018). This included the bombing of the U.S. embassies in
Kenya and the attack on the USS cole in Yemen (BBC News, 2020).

The ‘war on terror’ is a term used to describe the American-led counterterrorism

campaign instigated in response to the terrorist attacks made by the Taliban within the
United States on the 11th of September 2001. It was a multidimensional campaign that
consisted of an almost limitless scope whereby its military dimension involved major
wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and covert operations in Yemen (Jackson, 2020). This war
was permitted to be set in motion by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as a
reaction in the form of self-defense. Consequently, the United States announced the
beginning of this war and launched air strikes in Afghanistan in October 2001. At this
point, the U.S. made combating terrorism the focus of their foreign policy (Bergen,
2018). The international coalition ended its combat mission in 2014, staying only to train
Afghan forces (BBC, 2020).

Continuity and change in war policy

Research Associate Dionysis Markakis (2016) stated that the 9/11 attacks initiated a
significant departure in the traditional direction of US policy to the Middle East. He
explained that by adopting a policy to replace the Soviet totalitarianism with that of
Islamic fundamentalism, the United States defined its position in the broader
international system for the first time since the end of the Cold War as it embarked on a
‘global war on terror’ (Markakis, 2016: 65). In agreement, Lecturer in International
Security Richard Jackson (2017) suggested that this war represented a new phase in
global political relations in addition to having had important consequences for security,
international law, human rights and governance.

Moreover, Associate Professor of Political Science Tom Lansford (2009) agrees that the
attacks in New York and Washington, DC certainly transformed American foreign policy.
For instance, President Bush responded to this crisis with new substantive
commitments and institutional changes. Bush outlined a policy of opposing terrorism
with military force everywhere it exists and taking military action against foreign
governments that harbor plus support terrorists. This commitment includes the
assassination of terrorist and foreign leaders implicated in terrorism against Americans
(Lansford, 2009: 45).

The Bush Doctrine was announced in a televised address to the nation whereby
President Bush stated that throughout the war on terrorism the United States would
make no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them (Watson, 2003: 96).
Watson (2003) proposed that this policy and Bush’s advocacy of preemptive attack
against potential adversaries are both distinctive features that show departures from
longstanding U.S. practices. Although the Bush Doctrine is similar to the Truman
Doctrine in the sense of the United States pledging to act anyplace in the globe to
combat a particular enemy, Lansford (2009) also suggested that the Bush Doctrine
differs from previous regional commitments like the Monroe Doctrine due to the ‘broad,
amorphous definition of the enemy’ (Lansford, 2009: 45). Unlike other foreign policies,
this one declared a worldwide mission which was to end all terrorism, opposing all
tyrants as well as waging preventive war against any and all rogue nations seeking
weapons of mass destruction (Buchanan, 2007).
Furthermore, Peter Beinart (2008) argued that while the war in Afghanistan enjoyed
broad bipartisan support, the commencement of the ‘war on terror’ and the associated
war in Iraq, polarized the country and initiated a new era of partisan foreign policy
(Heaney, 2015: 46- 47). As a result, Adjunct Research Professor Heaney (2015)
declared that this perspective saw President Bush’s foreign policy as a significant
departure from the administrations that preceded it and as inconsistent with the kind of
policy that otherwise would have been implemented by a Democratic presidential
administration.

Associate Professor in International Relations Jack Holland (2014) stated that Obama’s
major foreign policies positions in regards to his calls on war and intervention were
continuous with those of George W. Bush. In accordance with this, Heaney (2015)
noted that there was more continuity than change on war policies in Iraq and
Afghanistan between the Bush and Obama administrations. Obama’s proclivity for the
use of drones represents continuity with the policy of the Bush administration who had
also used them. However, the differentiation between the two is the much larger
frequency of drone strikes under Obama (Holland, 2014: 12). Jackson (2017) observed
that other important continuities with the policies of his predecessor included greatly
expanding the campaign or targeted killings and increasing the expansion of special
operations forces plus deployment to conduct low-profile military interventions in
countries outside of acknowledged war zones. Although, under Obama, the wars were
gradually wound down (Jackson, 2017).

On the other hand, some foreign policy analysts contend that the ‘war on terror’ was not
as radical a break from the status quo as it seems on the surface. Professor of History
Leffler (2009) argued that Bush’s goals of sustaining a democratic peace resonates with
the most traditional themes in U.S. history. They flow from Franklin Roosevelt’s four
freedoms plus echo the noble rhetoric of John F. Kennedy inaugural address to ‘oppose
any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty’ (Leffler, 2009). He further claimed
that the quest for an international order based on freedom has changed astonishingly
little (Smith, 2008: 198).

Assistant Professor in U.S. Foreign and Security Policies Chin-Kuei Tsui (2017) echoed
this point of view by declaring that it is not a revolutionary shift of U.S. foreign and
security policies because spreading America’s core values, which is the central core of
the Bush Doctrine, fits within traditional themes in U.S. history. The goals of George W.
Bush’s foreign policies were integral to Woodrow Wilson’s missive that ‘the world must
be made safe for democracy’ (Tsui, 2017: 11).
Further to this, Research Professor of International Relations Frank Harvey (2012)
highlighted public statements which contain aggressive anti-Iraq policies of the Clinton
administration made by Al Gore while serving as vice president of the United States
(Heaney, 2015: 46). Harvey proposed that the policies of Gore were similar to those of
President Bush. This suggests that the Bush administration did not cause a break in a
long tradition of nonpartisanship in U.S. foreign policies, since a foundation towards this
ending was already created (Heaney, 2015: 47).

United States policy towards Iraq since 1990

Hostility between the United States and Iraq can be traced to the Iraqi invasion of
Kuwait in 1990. The United States in response to a call for intervention against this
attack, led a United Nations- authorised war the following year and drove the Iraqi
forces out of Kuwait (O’Sullivan, 2010: 85-89). As Iraq constantly resisted the sanctions
regime which was imposed by the United Nations Security Council, ongoing clashes
occurred between the two nations until 2001. Not only the Democratic, but also the
Republican presidential administration in the United States regularly engaged in military
conflict with Iraq after 1991 (Heaney, 2015: 56). By way of illustration, in 1998, as a
consequence of Saddam Hussein’s announcement that Iraq would no longer cooperate
with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) who are weapons inspectors,
President Clinton ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets
in Iraq. As a result, they attacked Iraq’s nuclear, chemical as well as biological weapons
programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbours (Clinton, 1998).

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Iraq had again failed to meet its disarmament obligations
resulting from the 1991 war. As a result, the U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell used
this case during his argument before the United Nations Security Council in 2003, to
justify an invasion of Iraq by the United States. Although they did not receive approval,
the United States proceeded to attack Iraq in 2003 (Heaney, 2015: 56). The U.S.
intervention abroad against a nation that had not yet attacked America, through the
invasion of Iraq, marked a shift and expansion of the anti-terrorism regime
commitments. The Office of the President released a document declaring that their
policy is to identify and destroy the threat before it reaches the U.S. borders and will not
hesitate to act alone to exercise their right of self-defence by acting preemptively
against such terrorists to prevent them from doing harm against the people of the United
States (Lansford, 2009: 64).

During the years of Clinton’s presidency, the preemptive use of force was adopted by
the U.S. administration in order to combat terrorism and was articulated in the
Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 39 regarding counterterrorism (Tsui, 2017: 12).
Leffler (2009) recalls Clinton authorising the bombings in Sudan of the Al-Shifa chemical
plant which was suspected of manufacturing weapons for Osama bin Laden due to the
Al-Qaeda attacks against U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. Concerns were raised in the
White House about the legality of preemptive strikes against a civilian target within a
nation that had never threatened the United States soil. However, National Security
Advisor Sandy Berger made a compelling case by questioning what the United States
would say if it did not strike it and then nerve gas was released in the New York City
subway (Leffler, 2009). This is suggestive of a preemptive stance.

Additionally, critics have argued that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a war of choice and
not one of necessity (Tsui, 2017: 11). In concurrence, Harvey (2012) described this war
as an ‘unnecessary, preventive invasion’ which was a product of the political biases of
President George W. Bush that exploited public fears. Leffler (2009) also stated that the
U.S. involvement in Iraq was one of choice, like the one in the Vietnam War. This further
emphasizes the idea that the War on Terror was not an extreme change in the traditions
of U.S. foreign policies as preemptive attacks to eliminate threats have been a recurring
U.S. strategy.

U.S. policy towards Afghanistan since 2001

The United States government demanded that the Taliban government handover
militant leader Osama bin Laden plus all Afghanistan-based terrorists in the Al-Qaeda
network as well as close all terrorist training facilities in the country, subject to U.S.
verification (CNN World, 2001). Consequently, the principle goal of U.S. policy in
Afghanistan during the early years of the American occupation was counterterrorism.
This policy led to a gradual escalation of forces as they turned greater attention to
security (Heaney, 2015: 61). Moreover, the United States worked to reform Afghan
institutions such as banning poppy cultivation and building secular schools. As the War
on Terror has a new set of commitments which includes immigration, public health and
local law enforcement connections, it turned into a public safety regime as well
(Lansford, 2009: 46). According to Lansford (2009), this kind of development is exactly
the kind of institutional change that regime-creating Presidents bring about, as when
they create foreign policy regimes they gain new powers and means of setting policy.

However, the policies between this war in Afghanistan and Nixon’s Vietnamization
program differed in the sense that Nixon failed to set in place the political foundation for
ongoing support for South Vietnamese security after the American departure. On the
other hand, Obama seemingly intended a long-term security commitment to both the
Afghan and Pakistani governments. Rather than aiming to win the war, Obama adopted
the political objective of managing it (Polsky, 2012: 336). Obama’s surge brought about
a change in policy because in addition to this, it aimed to degrade the Taliban so that
Afghanistan’s government could possibly bear a larger control of its territory (Polsky,
2012: 336). With the overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, the War on
Terror changed from a traditional war with a foreign state to a long-term commitment
towards expansive foreign policy goals. These new commitments to resist terrorism are
similar to the commitment to limited colonialism of McKinley and Roosevelt as well as to
the Cold War regime of FDR plus Truman (Lansford, 2009: 47).

It has also been argued that regime change has been implemented by other U.S.
administrations. For example, Tsui (2017) highlighted that in the 1950s, the Eisenhower
administration sought to overthrow the Mohammed Mossadegh regime in Iran. He
further stated that in the 1980s, the Reagan administration supported Nicaraguan
contras to topple the Sandinistas. Furthermore, in the 1990s, the Clionton administration
assisted Serb opposition forces in ousting the Slobodan Milosevic regime (Tsui, 2017:
12). Therefore, the policy of spreading American core values is not revolutionary.

Comparison between administrations regarding the U.S. promotion of democracy

Under the Bush administration, in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the
promotion of democracy emerged as an exigent aim of U.S. policy in the Middle East.
This was due to the perception of the region’s ‘democratic deficit’ as the underlying
cause of the attacks. The strategy of democracy promotion was built on existing
initiatives that were established by Clinton (Markakis, 2016: 174). Both administrations
were continuing in an established tradition of U.S. foreign policy which has aspired to
export a synthesis of democracy and capitalism as the necessary ingredients for the
‘good life’ in each and every country. Bush strongly believed that as long as the Middle
East remained a place where freedom did not flourish, it would remain stagnant, filled
with resentment and ready to export violence. Consequently, democratic reform in the
Middle East was a core objective of U.S. policy (Markakis, 2016: 65).

By constraining the unacceptable behaviour of incumbent autocrats, encouraging

emerging democratic forces as well as recognising the positive relationship between
democracy promotion and national security, U.S. government officials helped to push
the process of democratization forward in the Philippines, South Korea as well as Chile
(Lennon, 2009: 77). Throughout these instances and in Panama, the United States’
strategy of democracy promotion was exercised in an attempt to manage political
outcomes so as to maintain its influence and interests. Similarly, in the Middle East, the
United States cultivated the necessary actors to facilitate a transfer of support away
from authoritarian political systems to elite-based democracies. In other words, it tried to
implement a strategic shift in emphasis from coercive to consensual forms of
governance (Markakis, 2016: 175).

The U.S. public diplomacy efforts in the Middle East are constructed within the realm of
informing and influencing with the goal to achieve changes in attitudes, perceptions and
behaviours. This reflects the legacy of the Reagan administration which was the first to
link public diplomacy with national security interests, which includes the promotion of
democracy (Markakis, 2016: 65). However, Markakis (2016) proposed that the attempt
to directly transplant its own political and economic institutions to Iraq, rather than
fostering the growth of underlying norms and values was rejected by Iraqi society. This
resulted in the United States to prematurely transfer sovereignty back to Iraq.

Conclusion

Some analysts concluded that the ‘War on Terror’ represented a radical break with the
United States’ past foreign policies while others argued that the continuities between
them were more striking than the innovations (Smith, 2008: 198). For example, Jackson
(2017) suggested that this war represented a new phase in global political relations in
addition to having had important consequences for security, international law, human
rights and governance. Additionally, Watson (2003) stated that Bush’s advocacy of
preemptive attack against adversaries is a distinctive feature that shows a departure
from longstanding U.S. practices.

On the other hand, the Bush Doctrine initiated preemptive strikes and preventive wars in
the national right of self-defense and similarly the United States took anticipatory action
to deal with real and imagined threats from Central America, the Caribbean and
Southeast Asia. Leffler (2009) stated that in each case, policymakers employed the
same rhetorical justification that Bush used which was ‘freedom’. Moreover, the Bush
administration continued an established tradition of U.S. foreign policy which has
aspired to export a synthesis of democracy and capitalism. This has been evidenced in
past foreign affairs with the Philippines, South Korea, Panama and Chile whereby the
United States facilitated transitions to democracy and eventually ceased support
(Markakis, 2016: 174).

Overall, it is agreed that the War on Terror represented a new era in U.S. foreign policy
and can be distinguished in specific ways from the policies that came before it, however
it was rooted in preceding foreign policy concepts.
Bibliography

O’Sullivan, C. (2010) ‘Colin Powell: A Political Biography, Maryland: Rowman &

Littlefield’, p. 85, 89, 90.
Markakis, D. (2016) ‘US Democracy Promotion in the Middle East: The Pursuit of
Hegemony’, Abingdon: Routledge, p. 65, 174, 175.

Lennon, A. (2009) ‘Democracy In U.S. Security Strategy: From Promotion To Support’.

Washington: Center for Strategic and International Studies, p.77.

Harvey, F. (2012) ‘Explaining The Iraq War: Counterfactual Theory, Logic And
Evidence’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tsui, C. (2017) ‘Clinton, New Terrorism And The Origins Of The War On Terror’.
Abingdon: Routledge, p.11.

Smith, S., Hadfield, A. and Dunne, T. (2008) ‘Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases’.
1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.198.

Watson, R., Gleek, C. and Grillo, M. (2003) ‘Presidential Doctrines: National Security
From Woodrow Wilson To George W. Bush’. New York: Nova Science Publishers, p.96.

Holland, J. and Bentley, M. (2014) ‘Obama's Foreign Policy: Ending The War On Terror’.
Abingdon: Routledge, p. 11, 12.

Heaney, M. and Rojas, F. (2015) ‘Party In The Street: The Antiwar Movement And The
Democratic Party After 9/11’, New York: Cambridge University Press, p.46, 47, 55, 56,
61.

Polsky, A (2012) ‘Elusive Victories: The American Presidency At War’, New York: Oxford
University Press, p.336.

Lansford, T., Covarrubias, J. and Watson, R. (2009) ‘America's War On Terror’. 2nd ed.
Surrey: Ashgate, p. 4, 45, 46, 47.

Buchanan, P. (2007) ‘Day Of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, And Greed Are Tearing
America Apart’. 1st ed. New York: St. Martin's press.

CNN World (2001) ‘No Negotiations, U.S. Tells Taliban’ [Online] CNN World. Available
at: https://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/01/ret.us.taliban/index.html

BBC (2020) ‘Afghan Conflict: US And Taliban Sign Deal To End 18-Year War’. [Online]
BBC News. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51689443
BBC News (2020) ‘Sudan 'Must Pay' US East African Embassy Attack Victims’. [Online]
BBC News. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-52722866

Leffler, M. (2009) ‘Think Again: Bush’S Foreign Policy’. [Online] Available at:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/23/think-again-bushs-foreign-policy/

Jackson, R. (2017) ‘War on Terrorism’ [Online], Encyclopaedia Britannica, 27 April,

Available https://www.britannica.com/topic/war-on-terrorism

Bergen, P. (2018) ‘September 11 Attacks’ [Online] Encyclopaedia Britannica. Available

at:
https://www.britannica.com/event/September-11-attacks/The-September-11-commission
-and-its-findings

Clinton, W. J. (1998) ‘President Clinton Explains Iraq Strike’ [Online], 16 December

1998, Available
http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html