The U.S. Military should shift its focus from Terrorism

There has recently developed the argument that the time has come for military of the United States to shift its focus from terrorism to other matters which are designed to promote international peace. It is for this reason that many policy makers have increasingly started shifting their attention from the war on terror to other initiatives that involve less military involvement in combat and more on peacekeeping and diplomatic initiatives. According to McAllister (2007), the United States in recent years has come to develop some very close relationships with its former adversaries such as Russia, with which it has developed increasing cooperation in matters concerning nonproliferation and counterterrorism. The main reason for the increased cooperation between these countries, according to McAllister is mainly because of the increasing threats to international security through the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by rogue states as well as the development of religious radicalism which further increases international insecurity. As world leaders, both the United States and Russia have come to realize that they have a common interest in the containment of security threats and these have been exemplified through the increasing risk of terrorist attacks against the United States as well as the radicalization that is taking place in the Caucasus region of Russia. It is mainly through military cooperation between these states, as seen through bilateral, unilateral, and multilateral initiatives, which have ensured that there is proper distribution of international power in ensuring security. McAllister concludes that while the American and Russian militaries have in recent years seen some level of cooperation, the fact remains that these two countries still have a long way to go before they can be able to fully cooperate in all matters concerning international security. It is for this reason that cases that deal directly with national security are dealt with informally, on a case-by-case starting point.

The military-led war on terror has led to a situation where a large number of suspected terrorists have been detained at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and it is for this reason that there has been plenty of agitation for the release of some of them, because they are deemed to be innocent. Foley (2007) states that the supporters of the policy of detaining individuals for long periods of time without trial justify their support by declaring that it provides the president with the capacity to contain terrorists and through vigorous interrogation are able to provide details of planned attacks. According to Foley, this plan has been widely criticized from its beginnings because it is a direct violation of human rights and lacks in any moral grounds making in illegal. This use of the military in the interrogation and detention of suspected terrorists, Foley states, has been a complete failure because it has led to the imprisonment of some innocent people who have only confessed to crimes they did not commit because of the fear of torture. The fact that the military is used in the development of indiscriminate dragnets, incarceration as well as the use of coercive interrogations who have not been proven to be terrorists has led to the discrediting of the American military, which many believed is a tool of American injustice. There has developed the risk of intelligence agencies being provided with false information through the false confessions of individuals who do not know anything about what they are talking about and this has led to the increasing misinformation that has hampered the progress of the war on terror. Because of the abject failure of coercive interrogations, the United States government has come to fail to comprehend the connection between detention, interrogation, and detentions and this has led to the failure to sort those individuals who are terrorists from non-terrorists through the judicial process.

It is a fact that many of the individuals who, through military action, have been detained are not accorded any of the constitutional rights that are commonplace among most Americans. This has led to the increasing disillusionment of the families of the individuals that have been detained that they will receive justice by proving their innocence. According to Jenkins (2006), in the 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court ruled that the individuals who had been detained by the government on suspicion of being terrorists only had limited rights and that because of this; they had no ability to challenge their status as enemy combatants. Jenkins further states that it was in response to this case that the Bush government formed the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT), although this tribunal proved not to be effective because it functioned as the propagator of the government’s case against the detainees. This tribunal has proven to apply a broad definition to all of those individuals who have been categorized as enemy combatants and because the detainees are prohibited from having lawyers, they are not able to argue against the tribunal’s decision to detain them indefinitely. The military commissions which were developed by the Bush government to try detainees on charges of terrorism and war crimes have, according to Jenkins, been rigged against the accused. This is mainly because of the fact that these commissions rely completely on the confessions coerced from the detainees through torture, the use of hearsay, as well as the use of soldiers as jurors. Because military commissions have the power of passing the death sentence to those who are brought before them has created a situation where it is extremely difficult for the individuals who have been falsely accused to get out of the situation alive. This is the reason why some innocent detainees, in their attempt to stay alive end up falsely accusing others and confessing to crimes they did not commit as a way of avoiding the death sentence. In addition, Jenkins states that because of the rigged rules that have been put in place in the trials of detainees, it has become the norm for investigators to remain confident that they will win all the cases that are brought before them. This is mainly because investigators have come to see little need to infiltrate terrorist organizations to gain tangible or credible details for their cases, relying on the mostly false confessions of their detainees. Kim and Allard (2008) state that since its development, there have been many challenges faced by the Department of Homeland Security in its attempt to create a common culture within the intelligence agencies under its jurisdiction. It is the development of a common culture between these disparate agencies that, in addition to the military, is essential for the development of a comprehensive antiterrorism strategy. This has not been the case and has led to the failure of intelligence agencies to develop accurate databases, and this has resulted in the failure of some military operations meant to deal with terrorist threats.

The 9/11 attacks on the United States has led to the development of a new American approach to foreign policy which is intimately tied to the security of the nation. According to Miles (2012), the American foreign policy towards Africa has been based on ensuring its security and this has come to rival development as the main reason behind American involvement in this continent. All development programs and projects that are of American origin have attached to them a security dimension, developed by the department of defense, which works hand in hand with such institutions as USAID. Miles argues that the high potential for acts of terrorism to be committed in the United States has led it to adopt policies towards Africa which serve to undermine its development. This is the reason, he states, why it is important for the United States to adopt counterterrorism measures towards Africa which are fairly mild to ensure that it becomes a strategic as well as developmental defense activity. Miles, in the writing of his article uses records as well as a study of the American policies towards the Maghreb region from the Bush through to the Obama administrations. The result of this study is that since the 9/11 attacks, the American policy towards this region has seriously shifted, ensuring that the previously diverse developmental and security initiatives in the region have become converged into one initiative. The result of this has been that there has developed a wide range of sympathetic public opinion throughout Africa towards the American military involvement in their countries, with many believing that they are the best option for deterring terrorism. This, however, has not been the case in American public, where there is a large number of people who question the validity of the military being actively involved in the developmental and security programs of African nations when they can do more in fighting terrorism.

The American military involvement in the war on terror has had an adverse effect on the internal stability of some countries such as Pakistan, which has since the beginning of this initiative, been a staunch American ally. According to Khan (2010), Pakistan’s military alliance with the United States has led to a situation where it is currently facing an internal crisis. This crisis stems from the fact that the government which recently came to power has had to contend with the commitments made by the previous government to the American cause as well as maintaining a stable relationship with its neighbors that has been soured by the war on terror. Khan further states that it is because of Pakistan’s involvement in the war on terror that its security has come under threat not only from India, its longtime rival, but also Afghanistan. Khan therefore offers the opinion that the only solution for this situation is for the United States to restrain the activities of India along the border close to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Moreover, according to Mohamadian (2012), there has been numerous debates among scholars concerning the unilateral military actions that the United States has taken in the Middle East which have come to affect diplomacy and international relations. While the intentions of some of these interventions might have been sound, the result has been arise in sectarian violence, especially in Iraq, as well as the prevalence of terrorist attacks, and these have come to threaten the American-led initiative to rebuild the Iraqi state. Furthermore, Ahmad (2010) states that there has developed some friction between the United States’ counterterrorism initiative and the one of Pakistan and this have created a situation where there is conflict between their national interests. Pakistan’s reliance on irregular warfare in its region is one of its instruments of national security and this has come to be challenged by the United States government which seeks to bring these activities to an end, therefore not serving Pakistan’s national interests.