Terrorism After 9/11

There is no question that terrorism, especially transnational terrorism, has increased dramatically since the fall of the USSR. Some say that this is the case because the world lost a balancing power which could keep the Americans in check. The International System has gone from being bipolar to unipolar, with the U.S. as the world's only remaining hegemon. But I will focus on more recent events relating to transnational terrorism and how it has been affected since the Iraq invasion in 2003. This paper will have a liberal point of view to tackle the issue. My argument or thesis will be that, indeed, transnational terrorism has increased and become more sophisticated in some cases since the Iraq war started over three and a half years ago. During the course of the paper I'll make references to specific terrorist attacks and explain why, in my opinion, the American decision to invade Iraq has led to increased cases of transnational terrorist acts.

Since I have liberal ideas myself, that is the theoretical approach I'll be using. In the eyes of most liberals, the invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq was uncalled for, illegitimate, and against international law and general norms. There was absolutely no proof relating Iraq to transnational terrorism. Quite the opposite, Iraq and its ex-leader had a long history of not wanting any involvement with any terrorist organizations, unlike a couple of other countries in that same region which, sometimes, openly support them. This makes one think that even if Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, which was the first American reason to go to war, Saddam most likely wouldn't have shared them with any terrorist groups. Of course, the reason of weapons of mass destruction as an

excuse for war have since then been morphed into the recently-termed reasons of democracy and liberty, whichever fits the U.S. agenda best.

Liberalism sees this U.S. policy of aggression as unnecessary and dependent on rash decisions. In fact, some reports say that the Iraq war was already on the minds of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz only months after the tragedy of September 11th, 2001. This suggests that this particular trio had other plans in mind, and I doubt any of those plans involved the pure and good-hearted liberty and democracy of the dictatorship-stricken Iraqi population. Saddam Hussein was indeed one of the most ruthless men in modern history, but the pretext for the war is still inexistent. After all, it was the U.S. which provided chemical weapons to Iraq in order to fight the Iranians in the 1980's. Maybe America is trying to find their own weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

It has already been established that there was a silly excuse at best to go to war with Iraq. Yes, Saddam attempted genocide on Iraq's own Kurdish population, with killing range numbering from a few thousand to a hundred thousand, and yes he did give out a $25,000 check to the families of each Palestinian suicide bomber who blew himself up to kill Israelis, but these alone aren't a justification for war. It's an absolutely great achievement to remove Saddam from power, but there are many more leaders like him still well and in power. Just take a quick look at Sudan, North Korea, Iran, and last but not least, one of the U.S.'s closest "ally" Saudi Arabia. Is this a double standard from the

Americans to preserve their key strategic interests? Definitely. When you get down to it, Iraq is floating on an ocean of oil (the U.S. already has a huge military presence in the Saudi Kingdom, and lately they've had their eyes on Iran as well).

It's easy to see why America's approval ratings around the world have been on a roller coaster ride. After the devastation on U.S. soil took the lives of close to 3000 people, every nation was onboard with the States for a just cause: the capture and extermination of Osama bin Laden and his terrorists. Little did these nations know, however, that American fury would lead them and their "coalition of the willing" to turn two countries into failed states (Afghanistan, I believe, was already a failed state). The Afghanistan mission was understandably justified, even from liberal viewpoints, since this was Al Qaeda's hiding and training ground at the same time. However, less than a year later Iraq was the next target. This was the point where America went against the world and made a mistake. Global opinion immediately turned against them, coalition forces were suffering continuous casualties, U.S. forces secured Iraq's oil offices and facilities as their very first call of duty when instead they should've secured Iraq's borders to prevent Syrian, Egyptian, and militants from other countries coming in and forming insurgency groups within the country. Meanwhile, Iraq's fantastic National Museum lay looted and burned to the ground with thousands of historic and precious artifacts missing. Understanding the dangers of meddling in Middle Eastern affairs and the unrighteous cause of war (some realized it far too late for the good of their own soldiers), nations such as Italy, Poland, Spain, and others withdrew their troops. This left

U.S., British, a bunch of small countries' troops, and under-trained Iraqi forces to battle it out with terrorists and militants in Iraq. The results have been catastrophic and heart-breaking. Iraq has become a battlefield for terrorists from around the world to take their revenge on America and her close allies. The situation is on the brink of civil war, if it hasn't started already in spite of semantics from the Bush administration which tries to say otherwise. Iraq right now is the global focal point of terrorism, and terrorism has spread from there to other parts of the world in the form of transnational terrorism. It's sad to say, but the countless new terrorists and their aficionados created by the U.S. decision to wage war on Iraq not only surpasses the original number of terrorists before the war, but now they've gained a huge amount of experience fighting the coalition forces everyday. One might argue that the Iraqi militants will only fight inside Iraq and not outside of it, but one never knows how their minds could be influenced by the foreign fighters who might urge them to fight outside the country once the Iraqi dilemma has been solved. Foreign fighters have projected this new-found experience and determination by launching difficult and sophisticated transnational terrorist attacks in different parts of the world.

The liberal viewpoint is the best method for analyzing this issue because it allows for more humane behavior, is open to new ideas to ameliorate the situation, and understands the human mindset

...