Reflective Post 9

The readings for the previous week-National Security Strategy of 2002 and 2010- were very interesting documents to read. However, these documents were official government documents, so to analyze where the stance of the respective administrations on a subject of prime importance was something that I enjoyed scrutinizing. I will attempt to briefly analyze few aspects of U.S. engagement against terrorist in the Af-Pak region.

The Bush doctrine was very loaded in the manner in which the Bush Administration defined its security priorities and the world order it sought to perpetuate. The document started in a triumphant tone noting the end of tyranny under the forces of totalitarianism and the end of the bipolar conflict-prone world establishing the U.S. as the most influential state in the world. The strategy then indicated the next sphere of conflict, with states that value freedom-like the U.S. - and terrorist who are ideologically driven to destroy these states. The Bush strategy came after the tragic events of 9/11 in which America was shocked by the devastating attacks. Now it was time for the Bush Administration to take an aggressive position on those that had killed many American and to secure the world from these rogue networks. This context explains the radically new foreign policy of the United States after 9/11.

The Bush Administration constructed a strategy that essentially allowed it to challenge global terrorism by any means necessary. The Invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were part of this strategy to defeat terrorism. 8 years later, what are the fruits of post-9/11 foreign policy? An occupation that was based on lies and fear, costing billions of dollars, with more American money funding a post-Saddam Iraq, and an ongoing occupation in Afghanistan with no end in sight. Have the terrorist really been defeated, and if not, how can they be, and what will success in the War on Terror look like?

I think this question was contemplated by the Obama administration when it crafted its National Security Strategy in May of this year. The strategy came after renewed focus on the Afghan occupation, and the surge policy implemented earlier this year. The Obama Administration has to convince the public and other wary world leaders that the fight is still worth it. This explains a break from previous language aspiring for an open-ended War on Terror to a more specific policy to “Disrupt, Dismantle, and Defeat Al-Qa’ida and its Violent Extremist Affiliates in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Around the World.”

We have yet to see the successes of this new-yet in many ways the same- foreign policy objective which is the most important pursuit of U.S. foreign policy and has been since 9/11. Thus far, the conditions in the War in Afghanistan and Pakistan are worsening daily, and any hope for a quick victory is slim to none. We can only wait until the next National Security Strategy, and evaluate how the new strategy will evolve in response to different circumstances; hopefully less ominous than they are right now.