Sie sind auf Seite 1von 13

The Cold War was a continuing state of international tension that began in the mid-1940s

and culminated in the early 1990s. The two main superpowers in this conflict were the United

States and the Soviet Union. The clash initiated as a result of converging ideologies during and

after the Second World War. Although the Soviet Union and the United States were against the

Axis powers and allies during the war, the period of reconstruction throughout Europe after the

war saw the tension between the two only increasing. The United States and the Soviet Union

were the two greatest military powers of the period and the ensuing tension between the

countries made the war a problem on an international scale. The Cold War was more a conflict of

military power, weaponry development, espionage and technological development, rather than

an actual war. The two military forces formed alliances with other countries to strengthen their

basis, with many Eastern European countries aligning themselves with the Soviet Union in the

Warsaw Pact and more Western European countries aligning themselves with the United States

in NATO.

The Russian Revolution of 1917 saw the rise of the first communist nation in the world.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks were immediately considered a problem by the United States, the U.S.

being a capitalist country. The overthrow of capitalist regimes and the switch to communism was

seen as a direct attack against the west and western ideology. The United States obviously

supported the White Army during the Russian Revolution, but the Red Army won in the end and

gained control of the Russian government. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that was signed

between the Soviet Union and Germany prior to World War II alluded to the fact that the Soviet

Union was aware of the ensuing conflict that Germany was about to embark on, which led to

further distrust form Western nations. The Soviets aligned themselves with the Allied Powers

only after Germany broke this pact with the invasion of the Soviet Union. With the eventual end
of WW II, the Soviets began to develop the Eastern bloc, which ensured their long-standing

presence in Eastern Europe. The Cold War that became relevant on an international scale was a

result of long-standing tension and distrust between the two main superpowers of the world.

The war on terror that has come to rise in the past decades is also a result of an ideology,

but whereas the spread of communism was both an economical and political ideology, Muslim

fundamentalism and the belief in jihad and terrorism is a mainly a religious ideology. The

communist revolution in the Soviet Union actually saw the absence of religion on a whole.

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the

spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.”(Marx 1977)1 This quote by Karl

Marx expresses the need for no religion in order to guarantee no conflicts on a global scale and

even conflicts domestically as a result of religious differences. The divergence of religion

between individual nation-states has been the cause of many past wars and appears to only have

strengthened in the past decade with sectarian battles in regions such as the Middle East and the

India- Pakistan region. The war on terror had become the focus of the Bush government and its

departments, initially stemming from the terrorist attacks committed on September 11th that

caused the destruction of the World Trade Center and the deaths of thousands of Americans and

international workers.

The terrorist acts of September 11th changed America forever. It changed the Bush

administration’s view of our role in the world and has changed the face of America. Before

September 11th you would never hear George W. Bush quoted as saying, “Our Nation's cause

has always been larger than our Nation's defense. We fight, as we always fight, for a just

1
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right (Cambridge University Press, 1977).
peace—a peace that favors liberty. We will defend the peace against the threats from

terrorists and tyrants.” (Security Strategy 2002)2 The administration saw September 11th as

not only an attack against America but as an attack against freedom and liberty. Therefore,

the Administration put together a number of agendas and strategies for the nation. The White

House, Department of Defense, Department of State, CIA, FBI, and Department of

Homeland Security all have a strategy for combating terrorism. All of these strategies fall

under the umbrella of the “National Security Strategy of the United States”, also known as

the Bush Doctrine, which tells of the United States’ role in the world, its view of terrorism

and its moral views of how the world should be. (Security Strategy 2002)3 The main idea or

bigger picture of the United States in fighting terrorism is to promote democracy within free

states. The United States assumes that if every nation had a strong state that was democratic,

terrorism would not exist, or at least not to the degree that it does today. Therefore the fight

against terrorism can be seen to have two major goals. First: to defeat terrorism that exists

today in the appropriate means. (Militarily, economically, multilaterally, politically) Second:

to do everything in the United States’ ability to prevent the factors that contribute to

terrorism (prevent weak or failed states, promote economic prosperity and nation building in

order to support pro-democratic countries). The strategy that focuses on terrorism was

drafted by the State Department and is titled “The National Strategy for Combating

Terrorism”, released in 2003.


2
The United States of America. White House. The National Strategy to Combat
Weapons of Mass Destruction. 17 Sept. 2002. 7 Dec. 2007
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/WMDStrategy.pdf>.

3
The United States of America. White House. The National Strategy to Combat
Weapons of Mass Destruction. 17 Sept. 2002. 7 Dec. 2007
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/WMDStrategy.pdf>.
The State Department has come up with a four point plan for dealing with terrorists, the

four D’s. The four D’s show how America wants to use all its “tools of statecraft” (Combating

Terrorism Pg 4)4 to halt the terrorist threat. The first D is defeat; to defeat terrorists and their

organizations. In a nutshell it is to identify, locate and destroy terrorist organizations. The defeats

message, in essence, is that America will use diplomatic, economic, information, law

enforcement, military, financial, intelligence, and other instruments of power with its allies to

defeat terrorist organizations. As well the United States aims to “prioritize our efforts based on

the immediate threat and our national interests.” (Combating Terrorism Pg. 5)5 This document

also utters a certain ideology of President Bush; “We cannot wait for terrorists to attack and then

respond.” (Combating Terrorism Pg. 5)6 This shows that if Bush sees fit, the United Sates will

use a pre-emptive strike option and that an offense is the best defense. The second D is deny; to

deny sponsorship, support, and sanctuary to terrorists. Fundamentally the deny goal is to cut off

the supply that fuels terrorist organizations. Its objectives include ending state sponsorship of

terrorism as well as “establishing and maintaining an international standard of accountability

with regard to combating terrorism” (Combating Terrorism Pg. 7)7, meaning that if there is a
4
The United States of America. U.S. State Department. The National Strategy for
Combating Terrorism. Feb. 2003. 29 Nov. 2007
<http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/60172.pdf>.

5
The United States of America. U.S. State Department. The National Strategy for
Combating Terrorism. Feb. 2003. 29 Nov. 2007
<http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/60172.pdf>.

6
The United States of America. U.S. State Department. The National Strategy for
Combating Terrorism. Feb. 2003. 29 Nov. 2007
<http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/60172.pdf>.

7
The United States of America. U.S. State Department. The National Strategy for
Combating Terrorism. Feb. 2003. 29 Nov. 2007
state that sponsors terrorism, all countries will be on the same page as to what action to take

towards that state.

. The document also stresses that in order to be successful, the United States must work

with all its allies to do a number of things: Support states that are willing to combat terrorism,

help weak states to acquire the necessary capabilities to fight terrorism, and persuade reluctant

states, since other countries have better relations with our enemies than the United States does.

Though the document stresses world cooperation and multilateral effort, it once again gives a

possibility of taking action unaccompanied; “If necessary, however, we will not hesitate to act

alone, to exercise our right to self-defense, including acting preemptively against terrorists to

prevent them from doing harm to our people and our country.” (Combating Terrorism Pg 10)8

Lastly, deny brings up two more strategies of the United States that attribute to the war on terror:

The National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction and The National Drug Control

Strategy. The U.S. must deny terrorist organizations from acquiring weapons of mass destruction

to use against us and our allies, as well as deny terrorists from receiving funds obtained through

the drug trade. The third D is diminish; diminish the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to

exploit. These underlying conditions include: poverty, instability, regional conflict, deprivation

etc. Primarily, terrorists take advantage of these conditions to exploit people, as well as to gain

power and support. So if the U.S. can continue to “resolve regional disputes, foster economic,

social, and political development, market-based economies, good governance, and the rule of

<http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/60172.pdf>.

8
The United States of America. U.S. State Department. The National Strategy for
Combating Terrorism. Feb. 2003. 29 Nov. 2007
<http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/60172.pdf>.
law, while not necessarily focused on combating terrorism [doing so will], contribute to the

campaign by addressing underlying conditions that terrorists often seek to manipulate for their

own advantage.” (Combating Terrorism Pg 25)9 Furthermore diminish focuses on the war of

ideals. Another goal of the State Department is to make sure every nation is on the same page in

regards to how terrorism is viewed. The Bush administration would like to “Make clear that all

acts of terrorism will be viewed in the same light as slavery, piracy, or genocide: behavior that

no respectable government can condone or support and all must oppose.” (National Security Pg

1)10 The final D is none other than defend; defend U.S. citizens and interests home and abroad.

This D, on the whole, explains that while doing everything in the nation’s power to combat

terrorism, the United States must protect its borders and its citizens. A chief portion of this goal

will be assumed by Homeland Security and its National Strategy for Homeland Security.

Homeland Security must obtain “domain awareness” so that the U.S. can recognize threats as

early as possible. As well, a Terrorist Threat Integration Center must be developed, where the

FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, and the State Department communicate and share information

streamlessly. Generally speaking, the United States must have its eyes open and its borders tight.

The last aspect of defend is to “ensure an integrated incident management capability.”

(Combating Terrorism Pg 27)11 In other words, the United States must have a plan if things go
9
The United States of America. U.S. State Department. The National Strategy for Combating
Terrorism. Feb. 2003. 29 Nov. 2007
<http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/60172.pdf>.

10
United States of America. Office of Homeland Security. Department of Homeland
Security. The National Strategy for Homeland Security. July 2002. 1 Dec. 2007
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/book/nat_strat_hls.pdf>.

11
The United States of America. U.S. State Department. The National Strategy for Combating
Terrorism. Feb. 2003. 29 Nov. 2007
<http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/60172.pdf>.
wrong and we are attacked. Whether it is another attack by commercial airliner, chemical or

biological weapons, or a nuclear dirty bomb, the United States must be prepared for recovery.

The United States considers itself to be the democratic, moral leader of the world, which

other countries can look up to in order to maintain healthy political, economical, and social

ideals. The United States, since the beginning of the Cold War, has thrived on the threat of other

nations in their political regimes. The struggle to battle communism was the basis of United

States leadership throughout the world and with the end of the Cold War, the United States

appeared to need another scapegoat to concentrate their efforts on. The war on terror, as a result

of the 9/11 attacks, gave the United States a legitimate reason for the need to invade those

terrorist countries that could possibly pose a threat to the welfare of Americans in the homeland.

The fact that it was the first direct attack upon the continental United States in over a century

only strengthened the need to secure this threat, with a majority of Americans backing this effort.

But how legitimate is the actual threat of a terrorist attack on the mainland United States.

Obviously, the threat of terrorist attacks on American allies is a very real and actual problem,

given their proximity to the nations that harbor such terrorists and the greater ability to travel

from nation to nation. The real possibility of a long-standing ally of the United States, India,

being attacked with weapons of mass destruction is better realized, given the fact that they share

a border with Pakistan. The conflict between India and Pakistan is even direr given the Punjab

region and the fact that citizens within India have a Pakistani heritage and show sympathy for

Pakistani, and therefore Muslim ideals, which can sometimes be based on extremism and

fundamentalism.

The Cold War was a period of mass proliferation of weapons that would not only ensure

destruction of the United States and the Soviet Union, but also the destruction of most of the
world whether it is through direct attack or through inherent damage of the environment. The

threat of mass destruction of the United States was very real with such events as the Cuban

Missile Crisis, with the missiles of mass destruction being in close enough proximity to reach the

United States. The threat from terrorist organizations is real in the aspect that the spread of

Muslim fundamentalism breeds hatred throughout the world not only for the United States, but

for Western ideals. The United States has pushed the advocacy of democratic and capitalist

ideals for a long time now. The United States economy thrives on the exporting of products to

foreign nations and this transfer can only occur where there is a healthy enough economy whose

citizens can purchase these goods. For instance, United States support of the reconstruction of

Europe following the end of World War II was mostly in part to guarantee the prevalence of

capitalist economies that could purchase the specialized, high-priced goods of the United States

and to maintain democracy in the political realm, which shows a similarity in foreign policy of

the two wars considered.

The threat of communism was far superior in the political and economic realm than that

of terrorist groups. Although these Muslim fundamentalists do hold political sway through fear

and destruction, they do not hold a majority in the country. For instance, in Afghanistan, the

Taliban and its radical affiliates, such as al-Qaeda may have a majority in the south near

Kandahar, but a majority throughout the country is not fully realized. (Rashid 2001)12 The United

States is failing to realize that the mentality of these Muslim fundamentalists is nearly

unbreakable. This unstoppable fact, coupled with the continual flow of radical Afghans and

Pakistanis from fundamentalist mosques across the border from Peshawar, almost ensures that

the war is almost impossible to win. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to spread

12
Ahmed Rashid, Taliban :Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia (Yale
University Press, 2001)
communist ideals, they were unable to break the mentality of the Afghanis, who continued to

fight through increasing death toll. These fundamentalists are taken at a young age and thrown

into mosques and brainwashed until they are extremist militants who would go to any means to

preserve the Muslim way of life. To the extremists, their way of life is in danger and they are the

ones that need to secure their homeland.

The United States has taken over where the Soviet Union left off and is making the same

mistakes as the previous occupant of the country; the only difference is that instead of the

mujaheddin it’s the Taliban that is the enemy. The United States is in the midst of a battle that is

almost impossible to win. A New York Times article from October 2008 quotes a Russian

ambassador to the United States that was brought to Afghanistan to see the progress that the

United States has made. The Russian ambassador said that the mistakes that were made by the

Soviet Union previously were now again being made by the United States. The United States, as

happened in Vietnam previously, is in the midst of a war in which the enemies are guaranteed

never to back down. The drug trafficking trade within Afghanistan, as it did in the Vietnam War,

maintains the army of the Taliban. Fifty percent of the world’s heroin comes from Afghanistan.

The heroin moves through Iran, to Turkey, and then on to Europe and possibly America, where

those who can afford the product live. The drugs are traded for weaponry and then used upon the

nation’s army that is buying the products.

The spread of terrorism is a problem today, just as the spread of communism was a

problem during the Cold War. Muslim fundamentalism has spread throughout the Middle East

and has now made its way to Africa, especially in such countries as Somalia, Sudan, and even

Ethopia. The difference in the threat is that the aggressors cannot be simply pin-pointed because

the terrorist group is not always the head of the government. Communism, at least, was an
attempt to legitimize everyone’s role in society and work for the preservation of all life that

somewhere along the line went wrong through corrupt leaders or corrupt regimes. Terrorism is

more centered about anarchy and the destruction of those people who do not think along the

same lines Muslim fundamentalists. The proliferation of thermonuclear weapons during the Cold

War period would have led to more wide-scale devastation on a global scale, but the anarchy that

terrorism creates is threatening the stability of the world for years to come. At least an end to the

Cold War could be sought with the two superpowers agreeing to a truce and disarmament. With

terrorism, a culmination cannot be agreed between two nations because the terrorist groups act in

secrecy.

The United States claimed that the invasion of Iraq was in order to procure the weapons

of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein was apparently in possession of. The U.N. did not

support this invasion, but the United States continued nonetheless. “Proliferation of weapons of

mass destruction is potentially the greatest threat to our security……The most frightening

scenario is one in which terrorist groups acquire weapons of mass destruction. In this event, a

small group would be able to inflict damage on a scale previously possible only for States and

armies.” (Solana Pg 7-8)13 This idea is the basis for United States invasion of those countries that

are thought to be in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and the main reason that we have

such a high military occupancy in South Korea, in order to maintain vigilance upon Kim Jong-il

and his regime, which is in control of weapons of mass destruction.

13
Solana, A secure Europe in a better world, pg 7-8, accessed March 2009. Originally
published in Barry Buzan, “Will the ‘global war on terrorism’ be the new Cold War?”,
International Affairs (2006): 1101-1118.
The United States wants to be the premier leader in the war against terror and has

maintained its supremacy in past decade. “At the beginning of this new century, the United

States is again called by history to use our overwhelming power in defense of freedom. We have

accepted the duty, because we know the cause is just……we understand that the hopes of

millions depend on us…...and we are certain of the victory to come.” (Cheney 2002)14 The

United States, as was with the Cold War, has maintained its role as the watchdog of the world.

The United States believes that they can guarantee a win, which is ridiculous in a situation such

as this, because there are only more militants to come that have not even been born yet. Muslim

fundamentalism is seemingly an impossible ideology to quash. As was with the Cold War, the

United States did not agree with a particular ideology and took it upon itself to correct the

problem that threatened the sake of the world, but in doing so only created further dissension

within fundamental Muslim groups. With the communist regimes of the Soviet Union, the

problem could at least be shown with the failure of social programs and the general poor

standard of living. The perpetual battle with extremist Muslims will only strengthen the idea that

they are accomplishing something. The fear that is spread by extremist militants is a win in itself.

Fortunately, Americans at home have seen that these motives of continual warfare are not

accomplishing what the United States intended with the initial plunge into the war on terror.

They have gradually began to favor a more isolationalist policy as occurred with the Vietnam

War, alluding to the fact that they do not consider the concerted war effort to be forward moving.

The war continues to put the United States into further and further debt, which is a large cause of

14
Dick Cheney, ‘Success in war is most urgent US task, Cheney says: remarks to the
Commonwealth Club of California’, 7 Aug. 2002, http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-
se1585.html, accessed March 2009. Originally published in Barry Buzan, “Will the ‘global
war on terrorism’ be the new Cold War?”, International Affairs (2006): 1101-1118.
the recession that America is consumed in at the present. The continued war effort has begun to

create rifts between the United States and Europe. The idea that the war in Iraq was illegitimate

is widespread throughout and the legitimacy of the Bush administration was obviously doubted,

even in the United States itself. Hopefully, the new administration, under the direction of

President Barack Obama, can once again legitimize the leadership of the United States in world

affairs, not as a fearful military force that does anything they see fit, but as a leader who is

willing to work to together with the global community to reach a feasible answer to problems of

the world that can be accepted by all.

“Like the Cold War, the confrontation between these new forms of culture-based politics

and the secular state is global in its scope, binary in its opposition, occasionally violent, and

essentially a difference of ideologies; and, like the Cold War, each side tends to stereotype the

other.” (Juergensmeyer 1994)15 These similarities are clear when comparing the Cold War and

the new-found war on terror. Though similarities exist, I do not believe that the war on terror is

the new Cold War. Religion is an ancient ideology, while the idea that communism could

actually work is a rather recent development. No matter how many extremist militants the United

States captures or kills, there will always be more to take their place. Religion has truly become a

problem on a global scale and will seemingly be a complication in international society for years

to come. Whereas, a culmination to the Cold War was finally reached between two nation-states,

a peaceful resolution to fundamentalist Islam is likely never to be fully reached because of the

secrecy in which they commit atrocities and the prevalence of religion throughout the world.

15
Mark Juergensmeyer, The New Cold War? (University of California Press, 1994) 2.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen