War on Terrorism Essay Example for Free

War on Terrorism EssayDuring the year 1998, a group of Ameri stack neoconservatives openly wrote to President Clinton to attack Iraq. This group was known as the Committee for serenity and Security in the Gulf. They were in real sense calling for the Americans to form part of a substitute army of attack for Israel. The signatories included capital of Minnesota Wolforitz, Richard Perle and Eliot Abrams among others. Of course Clinton resisted these ventures and instead indicated support for the Iraq Liberation Act providing $ 97 million for training and equipping Iraqi exile groups. Come 2000, this particular group went ahead to target the think tank the Project for the New American Century con cofounded by the wishs of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Lewis Libby and Paul Wolforwitz (Flum, 2008). A Break with Previous united States Foreign and Defense Policy During this time, three think tanks which were pro-Israel were championing homogeneous ideas The Jewish Institute for na tional Security Affairs (JINSA), The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), as well as the Center for Security Policy (CSP).These neoconservatives formed an integral part of the Bush 2000 presidential campaign as foreign-policy advisors (Flum, 2008). At this point in time, these powerful psychealities easily influenced Bush with the ideological obsessions they had. What can be said here is that the Operation Iraqi Freedom, a description given to the invasion and commercial enterprise of Iraq by the U. S and affiliates represents a new dimension with regards to post-conflict humanitarian action.This new approach integrates security, humanitarian response, reconstructive memory as well as g everyplacenance under the umbrella of the department of Defense. The contend on act of terrorism represents a agree with preceding(prenominal) United States foreign and confession policy to the extent that the UN agencies and non governing bodyal organizations which conventionally h ad coordinated and implemented humanitarian assistance as well as post conflict reconstruction activities, are now relegated only to playing supportive roles within efforts supervised from the Pentagon (Charny, 2003).Again the war on terrorism represents a break with previous United States foreign and defense policy to the extent that the Iraq war is perceived as an expression of a new national security policy of pre-emptive self defense by the Bush administration (Charny, 2003). In spite of this new perception, it has there seems to be no mankind discussion of the long-term insinuations of the new approach to humanitarian assistance and post-conflict reconstruction the administration has embraced.Still, this break with the previous U. S foreign and defense policy is evident in the way humanitarian assistance has been militarized, the troops given political, diplomatic and humanitarian responsibilities as well as the fact that donor government and mugwump agency contributions ha ve been minimized. It has been argued that it is unclear the extent to which these new approaches can be considered new U. S doctrines more(prenominal) so regarding humanitarian emergencies.A discussion concerning NGOs with Joseph Collins, the assistant secretary of Defense and the person charged with running the pentagons Stability Office clearly suggests that at least in the meantime, the discussion section of Defense will lead humanitarian operations in emergencies surrounding the military. According to Dr. Collins, the taking over of the humanitarian and reconstruction activities in the post-conflict Iraq by the Pentagon is a reflection of the assessment of lessons learned from post-conflict reconstruction efforts (Charny, 2003).In the opinion of Dr Collins, there lacked a clear overall authority who could coordinate the diverse players like the government leaders, UN agencies and personnel, as well as the peacekeeping forces among others, thereby plaguing the efforts in Kosov o and Afghanistan. Following those events, the conclusion of the Pentagon was that there was a need for a single unit to command all the aspects of the post-conflict response, thus placing these activities in the hands of the Department of Defense (Charny, 2003).This is a further illustration of the way the war on terrorism represents a break with previous United States foreign and defense policy. Conclusion In the final analysis, all these attempts represent a radical shift in the multicultural character of post-conflict endeavors over the past years in areas like Cambodia, East Timor, Afghanistan and the Balkans. It therefore means that the war on terrorism represents a break with previous United States foreign and defense policy.It should be noted however that this approach has not yielded positive results in Iraq. The Pentagons Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) did not include the UN and the NGOs during its pre-war planning. The overall implication for this has been the ORHAs slowness in restoring basic services as well as its failure to impart a legitimate Iraqi authority to locally run the state (Charny, 2003).ReferencesCharny, J. R. (2003). The United States in Iraq An try With Unilateral Humanitarianism. Institute for Policy Studies, (IPS) Foreign Policy in Focus, Washington DC. Retrieved December 29, 2008 from http//www. fpif. org/commentary/2003/0306dodreconst_body. hypertext markup language Flum, P. (2008). The Origins of the Iraqi War The Neoconservative Agenda for Middle East Conflict. Linpage Place, St. Louis. Retrieved December 29, 2008 from http//www. goalsforamericans. org/2004/07/07/the-origins-of-the-iraq-war-the-neoconservative-agenda-for-middle-east-conflict/