Two Spins on the US “War on Terror” Essay Example for Free

Two Spins on the US â€Å"War on Terror† Essay The September 11 tragedy has engendered the US â€Å"war on terrorism† that was launched to restore peace and world order. This, of course, echoes the side of the Bush administration. Other groups have argued that the war on terror failed to remedy terrorism since it has proven to be an act of terror itself. Instead of bringing peace, numerous individuals have analyzed the war on terror as an attempt of the US to re-establish itself as Empire. The long competing discourses for and against the US attack of Iraq have often left the common citizen confused and apathetic regarding the issue. This paper argues in the concluding part that it is not enough to be trapped in the various â€Å"spins† relating to the war on terror. More than ever, the times necessitate for individuals to speak up and make a political stand. Introduction After the September 11 tragedy, the US has taken on a role to defend its nation – even the world – from what it perceives as â€Å"terrorists. † This maneuver is grounded on various political and economic policies that have been championed and criticized by different peoples all over. The eventual result of this global campaign to â€Å"curb the spread of terrorism† is the US invasion of Iraq. Four years after the US, United Kingdom and the coalition made their move to crush the â€Å"enemy,† numerous groups and individuals contend that the situation has only gone worse. The US State department, on the other hand, lauds the measures being taken up to now, arguing that peace can only be achieved through a sustained and protracted â€Å"war on terrorism. † Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on which side one is from), the US war on terror is still very much at work today, making it a pressing issue gripping our nation and the world. This paper re-constructs the two â€Å"spins† surrounding the issue of the US war on terror by assuming the side of the US government and the opposition. The question of the hour would thus be: Did the US war on terror prove beneficial or detrimental? By â€Å"spin,† I am borrowing Bill Maher’s elementary definition of the term: â€Å"a lie communicated through the veneer of vague truth† (Press, 2002, xi). According to Bill Press, spin has a vital role in the way political campaigns are arranged today (Press, 2002, xiii). Taken from a ball sport which is cricket, the meaning of spin has then on evolved to connote highly manipulative and deceptive techniques that are selective in vision and interpretation of facts, values and statements. One of the most popular strategies used for spin is non-denial denial. It is much related to the way of talking in which the statements are constructed to assume unproven truths. Ambiguity and skirting, rejecting validity of hypothetical values, and appealing to internal policies – these constitute the strategy and method of spinning. Those who are skilled in spinning have developed a keen sense of timing that allows them to manipulate the people especially during tragic times like the September 11 tragedy. For instance, when British political advisor and press officer Jo Moore sent an email to her department stating that â€Å"It’s now a very good day to get out everything we want to bury,† the statement was manipulated to mean that Moore was insulting those who died and got buried during the September 11 tragedy (Watt, 2001). The trouble, apparently caused by spin, forced Jo Moore to resign. An individual skilled at spinning truths are called â€Å"spin doctors. † Today, the term spin doctor interestingly connotes nearly all politicians and bureaucrats. People from the government have often been vilified for their supposed attempts to conceal the truth from the people. From comedy shows to news editorial, government officials have now become popular figures to be poked at. Spin’s definition as false discourses implies that it is propagated in order to make the people believe a particular political agenda. However, this operative definition doesn’t suggest that the two competing sides regarding the US war on terror are both false. On the contrary, moments of truth are revealed by the very act of critically examining whatever is being handed to us whether by those protecting the status quo or those who oppose it. Therefore, at the offset, the this paper’s disclaimer is that it is impossible to assume the two sides of the issue as if an individual is ideology-free and bias-free. For the purposes of this exercise, however, this paper will attempt to present the arguments by positioning the author in the shoes of each side’s defenders. This paper will first do a spin of the pro- War side followed by a negative spin launched by the anti-war side. In the concluding part, the author will make his own stand and forward his own recommendations. War as path to world peace Ever since the US has been attacked by terrorists, it has become a necessity to protect the country from possible future attacks. The collapse of Word Trade Center, the mark of economic prosperity in the world, left a deep wound that gave President Bush no other choice but to fight back. According to President Bush, the death of thousands of Americans, generated by Islamic fundamentalists, must be avenged (â€Å"Bush defends†, 2005). The US war on terror is thus the answer for the restoration of peace. One of the measures undertaken by the resilient US government was the passage of Patriot Act. Now, any suspected terrorist may be searched and arrested without warrant (USA Patriot Act, 2001). The opposition would say that this law tramps down the right of the people. Apparently, the opposition does not see the bigger picture. It is better to sacrifice a bit of our liberties in order for our country to be protecting itself. Those opposing the efforts made by the Bush administration prove guilty of not wanting the US to recover from the devastating September 11 attacks. Thus, it is important, more than ever, that the measures the Bush administration has initiated be reasserted for the sake of national unity and progress. Securing US borders One painful lesson Americans have learned from the September 11 attacks is that the country’s borders should now be strongly secured from terrorists and other possible threats. The boundaries are regularly crossed by 330 million non-American citizens. It does not come as a surprise then that terrorists were able to gain easy access to the US (US Patriot Act, 2001). Not only terrorists but also criminals, illegal immigrants, drug addicts, and smugglers enter the US and threaten US security. The changing and quickly developing atmosphere of terror allows new chances for another attack. The US Patriot Act (2001) therefore asserts that border control must be strengthened. President George Bush points out two main principles of border control: 1) Americas state boundaries must contribute to the lawful trade and travel in the most efficient way 2) Border control must provide reliable protection against all possible threatening factors like terrorism, drug traffic, epidemics, arms traffic and others (Guild, 2003). In the 2003 Budget, $11 billion was allotted for boundaries security and $380 million for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The plan is to build a modern entry-exit visa system that would surely secure the US from terrorists and other threats. This additional financing allows the border agencies to bring into effect reliable measures that would protect the US from foreign menaces, while at the same time letting legitimate goods and travelers cross the boundaries easily (Guild, 2003). An amount of $619 million was also given to the inspection budget of the Customs Service. This additional financing allows the Customs Service to fulfill its role to thwart dangerous goods like weapons of mass destruction. Particularly, the extra funding allows the Customs Service to hire about 800 new inspectors and make use of the most advanced technologies that will protect the US from harmful foreign goods (Guild, 2003). The 2003 Budget also increased by $1. 2 billion the financing of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The amount of money which totals to $5. 3 billion includes appropriate funding for constructing the entry-exit visa system. (Patel, 2003) The increase of funding is bound to help the INS have more patrol agents and inspectors in the northern boundary and to install integrated information systems providing efficient and precise data-sharing among the security agents. The entry-exit tracking system will help improve the flow of legitimate human influx while preventing dangerous or illegal individuals from getting across the state boundaries (Patel, 2003). The increased budget for border security therefore showcases the sincere efforts of President Bush to protect the American people. Although the budget is a bit expensive, it cannot be denied that the reward of security and safety remains inestimable.