Terrorism

Introduction

In this essay I will endeavour to demonstrate that the argument of a separation of religion from politics would help in facilitating and maintaining peace and stability in contemporary societies is a convincing one, by looking at the impact of religion on world politics, in the past and by giving examples of recent events of the political involvement of religious actors around the world having consequences therefore in contemporary societies. I will try to explain what religion is and why it represents a threat to the maintaining of international peace and security. The meaning of politics will be disused as well, during the conduct of this essay. There will be an in-depth analysis of Al Qaeda, the anti-Western Islamic militancy ideology, both from the Western perspective and the Islam perspective.

Starting with the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, religion was the main cause of conflict in the world, affecting the international peace and stability of that time. Islam and Christianity were the two main religions, both of them spreading their beliefs in all directions. Christianity spread to small territories in Africa and the Middle East, while vast areas from Africa, Asia and even Europe, like the Balkans and the Iberian Peninsular became Islamic.

Haynes (1993, 1998) pointed out that even in the twenty-first century it is difficult to find any country, and especially in the developing world where religion does not represents an influent actor in the political agenda.

There are many recent events, which show the impact of religion on world politics everywhere in the world. In Europe, for example where is considered that secular principles are long experienced, the civil war in the early 1990’s in Bosnia- Herzegovina between Croats, Serbs and Bosnians degenerated into a religious conflict. The same happened in the late 1990’s in Kosovo between Albanians and Serbs which can easily be defined as a war between Muslims and Christians. In Russia, the Orthodox Church arises from communism and became an important influence in the political world. The Islamic militancy was seen in various parts of the world, including the West, by the 9/11 events and in the developing world also, where probably the most noted rise of religion was the Islamic militancy in the Middle East, encouraged by the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1978-1979. Iraq conflicts with the West in 1991 and 2003 are more of a religious nature too. Another example from the developing world is Africa, in Nigeria which was polarized between Muslims and Christians while Somalia may lead to an Islamist government. The civil war in Sudan was due to religious grounds between Muslims and Non-Muslims. Algeria’s civil war was between the state and the Islamists, or also known as ‘Islamic fundamentalists’ where more than 120.000 people are estimated to have died.

Marty M. and Scott Appleby (1997) examined religion and politics, and came to the conclusion that ‘religion is an important source of basic values. But it can have a powerful impact upon politics within a state or region, especially when it is linked to ethnicity and culture. Religious belief often reinforces both ethnic consciousness and inter-ethnic conflict, especially in the Third World (but not only there, for example Northern Ireland and former Yugoslavia)’.

I think it is important to understand how society appreciates religion, considering the diverse regions of the world, such as the Western secular society and Islam. For the West, religion is something personal between man and God and does not have any role concerning society, being totally separated from politics. Religion is based on fear and tradition, serving the weak people who cannot understand science and development, also restraining the freedom of speech and opinion.

As for Islam on the other hand, they have a completely different view towards religion. The Quran, through the preaches of the Prophets, held that religion serves for the reformation of the individual and society. They believe that no society has absolute freedom, because this will lead to chaos and is against human nature. The Western societies, which claim democracy and freedom of speech, are not so different from any other types of rule, such as dictatorship or monarchy, because in the end they all have rules and laws. Islam agrees with the difference of opinion and speech as long as this difference does not affect and threaten its political structure.

There are many definitions of religion, and some of them tend to be too narrow and exclude many beliefs which are considered by many to be religious, or they are too vague and ambiguous. So far, based on my research , I think that the best definition of religion I have seen is Mircea Eliade’s, a Romanian historian of religion, fiction writer, philosopher and professor at the University of Chicago, who defined religion as something special and autonomous, that cannot be reduced to the social, economical or psychological standard. He saw the sacred as pivotal to religion, often dealing with the supernatural not with the society or the people.

Having some awareness of the meaning of religion, I will try to explain how religion interfering with politics represents a threat to the international peace and security of the world. In order to do this, it is imperative to analyse first the meaning of politics. Politics is generally understood in terms of ruling or governing a nation, and is concerned with the political affairs of the society. Problems arise when religion interferes with politics, as in the case of Islam, based on the idea that religion cannot be separated from politics, offering as example all the prophets of Allah, who came as leaders to reform society at large.

The Islam politics or also known as ‘the politics of God’ is the language of political theology, having its roots in the past for millennia, being the only language people used to express their opinions on the political affairs of their country. This happens even today, in the contemporary society, as for example, in 2006, when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran sent a letter to the former President of the United States, George W. Bush, letter that was translated and published all around the world. The subject of the letter was contemporary politics and religion, Ahmadinejad writing ‘If Prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph or Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) were with us today, how would they have judged such behaviourI have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (peace be upon him) and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth.

According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of divine Prophets.Liberalism and Western-style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today, these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems. Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.’ (Lilla, 2007)

In the contemporary world there are many religious groups with different principles and practices and diverse political aims, which reflect not only the country’s beliefs and traditions, but also the political problems of that country’s system, as for example in Israel, when Hamas confronted Israel, due to the political culture conflict between Palestinians and Israeli Jews.

Haynes (1998) thought that religion will lose its influence in time, as societies would secularize and modernize but his belief proved to be wrong, when Iran’s Islamic Revolution in the late 1970’s re-emerged religion as an issue in the political affairs.

The conflict between religion and politics which threatens the international peace and security derives from the different values and conceptions about the world, or how Samuel Huntington (2002) pointed out the ‘clash of civilizations’ based on religious and political distinctions between two main rivals, Christians and Muslims. He identifies a ‘West versus militant Islam’ dichotomy where Islam represents a threat to the West peace and security. This is shown by many examples involving the West (especially North America and Western Europe) and its opponents, the Islamic militancy, such as Iran, Sudan, and Afghanistan. The events that marked the conflict between the Arab world and the Christians (the west) was the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 by Iraq and the 9/11 event, which is seen by many commentators as a dividing line in international relations.

According to Samuel Huntington and Francis Fukuyama the international peace and security of contemporary societies is threatened by the followers of Islam militancy against the Christianity, which is considered to be a religion in accordance with the liberal democracy, promoting thus global peace and security.

Before analysing the most significant religious issue in international relations in the contemporary society, namely the threat posed to global peace and security by anti-western Islamic militancy, Al Qaeda, I will mention that religion-politics clashes may not necessarily happen between civilizations, but as well within them.

Akbar (2003) stated ‘In an age of despair the need for a hero who can inspire pan-Islamic victories becomes acute. Despair can become a breeding ground for mavericks who believe in themselves and their version of the faith. Osama bin Laden is in the tradition of another famous name from the eleventh century, Hassan i Sabbah, the Old Man of the Mountains, who has given the English language the word ‘assassin’’.

After the events of 9/11 and the subsequent attacks by the United States, Akbar agrees with Huntington that this is the beginning of the ‘civilization’ conflict between the Arab world (the militant Islam) and the West. Of course, there are commentators who disagree with this statement, arguing that is inappropriate to associate the terrorist attacks with the definite idea of Islam, considering that the following bombs attacks in Istanbul, Tanzania, Kenya, and Madrid were also ordered by Al Qaeda. It is important to note that the Islamic militancy and the groups associated with it, such as Al Qaeda, Hamas in the Gaza Strip are the result of the failure of Islamic governments.

Given that 9/11 and the following attacks are believed to be committed by Islamic radicals against the West there is a clear belief among many Muslims that Islam is opposed to the West, therefore United States lost support in many parts of the Arab world. As for example, in Morocco, surveys show that public support for the United States dropped from 77 percent in 2000 to 27 percent in 2003; in Jordan, it fell from 25 percent in 2002 to 1 per cent in May 2003; in Saudi Arabia, it fell from 63 per cent in May 2000 to 11 per cent in October 2003 (The Christian Science Monitor).

Going back to the Al Qaeda ideology, Sayyid Qutb, a radical Egyptian scholar of the mid-twentieth century, declared that Western civilization is the enemy of Islam, denounced leaders of Muslim nations for not following Islam closely enough, and taught that jihad should be undertaken not just to defend Islam, but to purify it (Haynes, p. 167).

Al Qaeda’s ideology is based on the ideas that the West has dominated the territories of Islam and that the liberal democracy beliefs advocated by the West corrupted Islam, and only respecting the pure and authentic Islam taught by the Prophet will save and purify the Muslims. These aims can be achieved only by defeating the West through any means, including violence and war. Al Qaeda movement can be understood as being against the West modernisation which can interfere and affect their societies on social, political and economic level. In both developed and developing worlds , there were large number of people, and not only the poor, the uneducated but also people with high education and social status who found stability in their traditions and beliefs, placing their hopes in religious groups and movements.

Al Qaeda is more than an organization, is a religious ideology and its consequences are very dangerous to the contemporary society. Even with the exclusion of the organization from Afghanistan, Al Qaeda’s ideology becomes stronger day by day, attracting new militant Islamic terror groups created by young believers in the concept of their religion. Analysing the events of 9/11 (when the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were subjected to terrorist attacks and nearly 3000 people were killed) and the subsequent attacks, from Al Qaeda’s perspective I came to the conclusion that the Islamist radicals act the way they do because they think that there is no other choice. They feel irritated, assaulted and offended by the Western, fighting for the survival of their society, culture, religion and way of life. Al Qaeda militants argue that they acted in self -defence, their justification being that Islam is the perfect social system.

This essay has shown that the involvement of religion in contemporary societies and in the past societies as well, interfering with politics has caused serious problems in the maintaining of peace and security around the world. The resurgence of religion in the post -Cold War and the threat the militant Islamic groups, especially Al Qaeda represents, were broadly discussed and analysed during the conduct of this essay. Christianity and Islam were examined to provide a better explanation of the impact of religion in various parts of the world in recent years. The terms religion and politics were defined and analysed, a list of religious –political conflicts was provided, hence this essay demonstrates that the argument from the title of the essay of a separation of religion from politics would help to facilitate peace and stability in contemporary societies is a convincing one.

References

Akbar, A. (2003) Islam under siege: living dangerously in a post –honour world, Cambridge: Polity Press
Foreign Affairs, (1997) The Clash of Civilizations?: the Debate, W. W. Norton & Co.
Fukuyama, F. (1993) The End of History and the Last Man, Penguin
Haynes, J. (1993) Religion in Third World Politics, Buckingham: Open University Press
Haynes, J. (1998) Religion in Global Politics, 1st ed. Longman
Haynes, J. (2005) Comparative Politics in a Globalizing World, Polity Press
Huntington, S. (1993) The Third Wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century, University of Oklahoma Press
Huntington, S. (2002) The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order, London: Free Press
Lewis, B. (2002) What Went Wrong?: Western impact and Middle Eastern response, Phoenix
Lilla, M., (2007), ‘The Politics of God’, The New York Times, 19 August
Marty, M. & Appleby, S. Ed. (1997) Religion, ethnicity and self-identity: nations in turmoil, Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England
Said, E. W. (1995)Orientalism: western conceptions of the orient, Penguin Books
Springer, (2009) ‘A Critique of Foundationalist Conceptions of Comprehensive Doctrines in the Religion in Politics-Debate’ International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, vol.65, no.1, pp.11-28, Jistor [Online] Available at: http://www.jstor.org Accessed: 26 March 2011
Stowers, S. (2007) ‘The Concepts of Religion, ‘Political Religion’ and the Study of Nazism’ Journal of Contemporary History, vol.42, no.1, pp.9-24, Jistor [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/ Accessed: 26 March 2011)
White, B., Little, R. & Smith, M. Ed. (2005) Issues in World Politics, 3rd ed., Palgrave Macmillan
The Christian Science Monitor. [Online] Available at: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0226/ Accessed: 27 March 2011

Page 1, Kim September 11 is a tragic event and an unforgettable day to Americans. Nineteen terrorists seized four commercial U.

S jets and crashed them into American symbols of the military and capitalism, and shook the entire nation. The attack did change Americans, mostly for a short while, but it did make huge impacts in America. The Mindset of Americans Americans became closer, more spiritual, less materialistic, but only for a while. In spite of terror and grief, Americans with utmost hope and compassion helped the person in need.They prayed together and stood together. The attacks of September 11 have made some people feel insecure, particularly the ones who lost their loved ones. Appreciation, gratitude, and support to the fire fighters, the army, and to the people who protect the country have increased.

[Ostroushko] Even the pop songs in TV stopped for few days. Patriotic albums were released, such as “The Rising” by Springsteen and “Freedom” by Paul McCartney. People who were obsessed with who is at the top of music charts and new releases got interested in news and the world around them.Also, the blood donation rapidly increased following the attacks, showing the feeling of sympathy felt by Americans. [Glynn] For the most part, it was an awakening for these people; September 11 showed that, for the first time in history, the American homeland is actually vulnerable to a deadly foreign enemy. Americans were so scared, that they seem to think that they saw mysterious images from the smoke of the falling twin towers such as a face of the devil. [Dolfman] As a result, Americans no longer take freedom for granted after September 11.

Although these may seem like temporary changes, lasting changes did occur in the nation’s economy and security system. Page 2, Kim Long lines at the airport Airline industry is one of the fields that had lasting changes because of 9/11. Minutes after hijacked airplanes crashed into the World Trade Center, the government ordered over 1,000 airplanes that were in U. S airspace to land immediately. To prevent further incidents like 9/11, securities were tightened.Nowadays, many airports around the world use the controversial x-ray scans which see right through your clothes. Many people have complained about the scans, saying that it is an invasion of privacy and that people should have the right to refuse to be scanned.

People also complain that it is not safe to be exposed to so much radiation at once, saying that those who fly often are in danger. Tight securities have caused many disputes; a YouTube video showing an 8-year-old shirtless boy being patted down at the Salt Lake City Airport has more than 750,000 hits, and the parents of the boy were infuriated. Greene] Due to 9/11, people must wait in long lines to undergo uncomforting x-ray scans and tightened security. A New Sense of Security Airlines industry is not the only one with tightened security. Since 9/11, a new department was created, called the Homeland Security.The new department was aimed at tightening the national security and dealing with immigration affairs. Today, the department of Homeland Security became the third largest department in the United States government, and we see them at the airport, giving Americans some sense that America is on a war against terrorism.

Columbia Encyclopedia] The fact that President Bush created a whole new department shows how serious and determined America is in fighting against terrorism. War on Terror The American government took much more action than just creating a new department, but it declared war on terrorism. Bush ordered to invade Afghanistan in 2002 with about 100,000 soldiers in order to exterminate Al Qaeda and Taliban, the groups behind 9/11. Bush ambitiously launched the attack in order to capture Al Qaeda’s leader, Osama Bin Laden, quickly and put an end to terrorism.Despite the ambitious plan, Osama Bin Laden was nowhere to be found and the Talibans hid in underground bunker. [Bernton] As the American troops took over all of Afghanistan, the whole country shook in chaos; people were missing every day, and American troops died from suicide bombers. To establish democracy and avoid anarchy in Afghanistan, Bush could not withdraw American troops just yet, and the war seemed to lengthen.

Meanwhile, the U. S government received intelligence reports that Iraq, led by Sadam Hussein, has weapons of mass destruction and is planning to sell the weapons to Al Qaeda and Taliban.In order to stop Sadam Hussein from selling weapons of mass destruction, Bush ordered another invasion at Iraq in 2003. Although American forces succeeded in capturing Sadam Hussein, the war dragged on and no weapons of mass destruction was discovered. America had the same situation at Iraq; Iraq became chaotic and U. S troops died from suicide bombers. Bush was heavily criticized for his faults with the two wars and his popularity fell.

As a result of two long wars which continue until today, America faces a debt of $13 trillion dollars due to increased military spending. Rios] U. S defense spending remained fairly steady throughout the late 1990s, but since 2002, it has climbed by about $50 billion each year. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost about $1. 5 trillion since 2001. [Horning] Today, America’s defense spending accounts for almost 50% of world’s total defense expenditures. [Stiglitz] Page 4, Kim America’s Economic Troubles The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), the American Stock Exchange (AMEX), and NASDAQ did not open on September 11 and remained closed until September 17.

When the stock markets reopened, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) stock market index fell 684 points, or 7. 1%, to 8921, a record-setting one-day point decline. In New York City, about 430,000 job-months and $2. 8 billion in wages were lost in the three months following the 9/11 attacks. [Barnhart] The city’s gross domestic product (GDP) was estimated to have declined by $27. 3 billion for the last three months of 2001 and all of 2002. The Federal government provided $11.

2 billion in immediate assistance to the Government of New York City in September 2001, and $10. billion in early 2002 for economic development and infrastructure needs. [Makinen] Because of the two wars and a creation of Homeland Security as a new department, U. S government faces a huge budget deficit, further increasing the debt. These wars indirectly caused economic recession in America. As the government focused on the war, its economy and the people were neglected. America’s economy is in the toilet, with unemployment rate soaring up to 10% and banks going out of business.

Health Effects The debris from the collapsed tower has caused many serious health problems.Several deaths have been linked to the toxic dust caused by the World Trade Center’s collapse and the victims’ names will be included in the World Trade Center memorial. [Smith]  There is also scientific speculation that exposure to various toxic products in the air may have Page 5, Kim negative effects on fetal development. [Baschat] Due to this potential hazard, a notable children’s environmental health center is currently analyzing the children whose mothers were pregnant during the WTC collapse, and were living or working near the World Trade Center towers.Also, a study of rescue workers released in April 2010 found that all the workers studied had impaired lung functions, and that 30% to 40% of workers were reporting persistent symptoms that started within the first year of the attack with little or no improvement since. [Grady] Public Enemy: Muslims As the hardships continued, the hatred for Muslims continued to grow. Reports of Muslims being targeted because of their religion were virtually unheard of before 9/11, hovering at around 30 incidents a year.

After 2001 however, incidents have leveled off at about 150 a year. Horning] Even at the airports, the Homeland Security workers tend to double check the Middle-Easterners rather than any other race. Today Americans generally have misconceptions about the people in turbans; we hear jokes on TV that Muslims carry bombs in their turbans, and that people should be cautious with them. Christians say that 9/11 started the new Crusades. Beginning of a New Era in America: September 11 With all these changes, life in America is definitely different after 9/11. It seems so long ago that those numbing images burned themselves into Americans’ memories, yet U.S troops continue to fight to defeat terrorism.

The terrorists only planned to take out a couple Page 6, Kim buildings in the U. S during 9/11, but the destruction of a few buildings have tightened airport securities, killed many in two wars, landed America in an economic recession with $13 trillion debt, and increased hatred for Muslims more than ever. Al Qaeda and Taliban definitely got much more than what they originally wanted. Despite America’s desperate efforts to end terrorism, the times of peace and prosperity seems to only exist in a history book.

Through the article by Attkisson and additional research, we learned that the Arab Spring was the uprising of both violent and non-violent demonstrations in the Middle East and North Africa over the two-year p beginning in late 2010 through the middle of 2012. The match that lit the fire started from a single demonstration by a street vendor in Tunisia, but all stemmed primarily from a civil uprising against oppressive post-colonial regimes.

There were many countries affected both during and post with the primary countries being Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria and Bahrain. The only one to succeed and establish a new democracy was Tunisia with Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Syria all either overthrowing the government and/or starting civil war. Bahrain’s civil uprising was brought to a halt by the incumbent who put a complete stop to the resistance.

This period and the changes that occurred during it certainly led to the rise in terrorist attacks seen both during and in the time after the Arab Spring. The uncertainty in this region led to growth opportunities for terrorist organizations and the freedom to spread out. There was new space that the terrorist could operate within that wasn’t available before the Arab Spring (Attkisson). In our overview last week, we discussed how unstable or transitioning countries were often at the greatest risk of attacks with political change being a catalyst for terrorism.

Not only did they now have additional space to operate in but also the perfect time to strike as well. Terrorist organizations also deployed social media posts to help stoke the already burning flames. We have already discussed the relationship between the lack of civil liberties and increased terrorist attacks adding yet more fuel to the fire (Krueger and Laitin).

While the civilians rose up to fight the repressive regimes in the post cold war era and attempt to install a government that would support the people and provide the basic rights to the people they supposedly govern; terrorist organizations found the perfect time to strike and gain followers that might see no other alternative option to success (Cockburn). In many instances during the Arab Spring the intentions were good but with no real succession plan once those in power were ousted this gave additional latitude to those terrorist organizations who were quick to strike.

This helps to explain the early success of ISIS as a spinoff of al Qaeda as well. In many instances the ruling party was so intolerant that the Islamic State may have seemed like one of the only ways to fight. ISIS saw it as an opportunity grab and by playing off those who had just failed in their own revolution found instead a way to garner support and quickly build momentum. This combined with ISIS’s extreme use of violence likely left many in these outlying areas that were picked up by ISIS to fall in line or risk death (Attkisson).

ISIS is following Sharia rule which helps to explain their extreme use of violence with little room for negotiation to their own views. As the self-proclaimed “Caliphate” of the region and implementing Sharia rule which brings about such extreme violence they were able to quickly take over these voids created by the Arab Spring.

Unfortunately, many of the regimes that were ousted during the Arab Spring were key players in the United States counter-terrorism strategy. Based on the rise in attacks and in conjunction with the fast ascension of ISIS it is clear that at least in some part those relationships helped to minimize and deter potential attacks.

It is imperative that the US re-establish those connections and leverage existing relationships in those countries minimally affected to help deter future attacks (i.e. Saudi Arabia/Israel). Frantzman in his article in “The Hill” spoke to bringing as much stability as possible to the region. Left unchecked in the immediate aftermath of the Arab Spring, ISIS gained a strong strategic hold within the Middle East that came with a prohibitive cost to abolish.

This Muslim extremist group has be-headed three International Journalist, two of them being United States citizens. They are looking to militaries radical Islamic followers and re-establish a radical Muslim rule In Iraq and Syria. Recently an allied international force, headed by the united States, has joined forces to stop ISIS from growing and gaining a stronger foothold in the Middle East.

The recent international action taken against ISIS has made me think that we may be entering into a new war against radical extremists. Obama was quoted recently in a press conference saying, “We will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against SILL in Syria, as well as Iraq,” Obama said in a recent press conference. NATO and the UN have joined forces along with many countries throughout the world to stop the spread of this terror group.

I think the recent airstrip’s throughout the region are pushing ISIS to retreat but, I also believe that a stronger ground defense should be utilized to deter further advancements by ISIS throughout Syria and Iraq. Recently, France has launched several airstrip’s on high-value ISIS targets and they were successful. However, it is hard to combat this force because they are very illusive and know the regions very well.

I think that “boots on the ground” will be the most successful way in combating this group because we can bring the fight directly to them, instead of operating strictly from the air, launching our attacks from our fighter Jets. Having military personnel on the ground is crucial in deterring and stopping SIS’S. The United States next move in fighting this terror group, in my opinion should be to send American soldiers and other military groups to fight on the ground. Ultimately, I think this fight will come down to the presidential order by President Obama.

He Is currently In the process of asking Congress to extend our military rights to fight this roof. I hope that Obama will use his power to take this fight from the skies and bring It to the enemy’s front door; on the ground. Middle East By neighborhoods Currently the biggest problem in the Middle East is the Islamic State in Syria and international Journalist, two of them being United States citizens. They are looking to militaries radical Islamic followers and re-establish a radical Muslim rule in Iraq and Syria.

Recently an allied international force, headed by the United States, has Joined operating strictly from the air, launching our attacks from our fighter Jets. Having military personnel on the ground is crucial in deterring and stopping ISIS. The United States next move in fighting this terror group, in my opinion should be to send American soldiers and other military groups to fight on the ground. Ultimately, I think this fight will come down to the presidential order by President Obama. He is currently in the process of asking Congress to extend our military rights to fight this bring it to the enemy’s front door; on the ground.

With a husband in the Army and currently on his third deployment to Iraq, I am often asked how I think this war is different from past wars. In order to answer this question properly, I found that I needed to do a little bit of research and acquaint myself with some war history. As I learned about previous wars that Americans have been involved in, I learned that only two wars have had a great deal of controversy.

The Vietnam War and the Iraq War, while almost identical are vastly different in their own right. In this paper, I will discuss the similarities and differences between two of our most recent wars. Even though there is a twenty eight year difference, there are many similarities between the wars in Vietnam and Iraq. Both Vietnam and Iraq are called wars, even though neither had a formal declaration of war. The “actions” claimed legitimacy per a Congressional vote authorizing the Presidents to send troops.

The Vietnam War was packaged as a crucial front in the Cold War; and Iraq was packaged as a crucial front in the War on Terrorism. Vietnam is seen as Texan President Lyndon Johnson’s war, although he saw it as carrying out military commitments made by his predecessors Eisenhower and Kennedy. Iraq is seen as Texan President George W. Bush’s war, although he saw himself fulfilling the stated goal (Iraq Regime Change) of his predecessors George H. W. Bush and Clinton. The excuse for major combat operations in Vietnam was a perceived attack on the Gulf of Tonkin.

The excuse for major combat operations in Iraq was a perceived attack on the Persian Gulf. Elected on a promise to end the war in Vietnam, Nixon expanded it into Laos and Cambodia. During the midterm election, Bush learned that the voters wanted to end the War in Iraq, but instead, he sent more troops. President Johnson left Vietnam unresolved for his successor, Nixon, who had no connection to his administration; President Bush left Iraq unresolved for his successor, Obama, who also had no connection to his administration.

The escalation into Vietnam and the invasion of Iraq are often seen as consequences because of events that happened in America less than two years earlier; the assassination of JFK and the September 11 attacks. Prior to the Vietnam War, the United States had military advisors in South Vietnam for about twelve years. After the Gulf War, the United States had combat troops in Iraq for about twelve years and kept them close by in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Both Vietnam and Iraq involved the United States accusing a powerful neighbor, Russia, China, and Iran, of aiding its enemies.

Vietnam and Iraq were largely supported by the public until the Tet Offensive and Abu Gharib put gruesome images of hard-won victories on American’s televisions. Soldiers of both Vietnam and Iraq found themselves being criticized for what had been happening, although they were just following orders given to them by the higher-ups. Opponents of both Vietnam and Iraq found themselves being branded as traitors for simply exercising their right to free speech.

With all the similarities of Vietnam and Iraq, there are vast amounts of differences too. When the villain in Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh, was captured at Saigon, his name was put on the city and it became Ho Chi Minh City in 1975. When Saddam Hussein, the villain in Iraq, was captured, he was executed after having his name removed from just about everything in Baghdad, the capital of Iraq. The United States got into Vietnam to keep the south from falling to communist dictators, though in the process they cancelled or rigged democratic elections.

The United States went into Iraq with the intentions to stop terrorism, but in the process provided fodder for new terrorist groups. The loss of Vietnam was supposed to cause a “domino effect” of nations falling to Communism. The victory in Iraq was supposed to cause something of a reverse domino effect of other Islamic states yearning for democracy. The Vietnam War ended with the unification of a country formerly divided, while the end of the Iraq War brought with it the partitioning of a country formerly unified.

American involvement in Vietnam began after the French stopped fighting; while American involvement in Iraq began after the French refused to fight. When the generals told President Johnson that they needed more troops to win in Vietnam, he refused to provide them and moved to end the war. When the generals told President Bush that they needed more troops to win in Iraq, he refused to provide them and moved to start the war. Vietnam’s fighting force was four times the size of Iraq’s.

Vietnam had a draft that was eventually abolished, while Iraq had an all-volunteer military that eventually led to talk of reinstating the draft. The War in Vietnam was a long fight to expel an invading army. The War in Iraq was a short fight by an invading army to expel Saddam, followed by a long fight to expel local militias. If a soldier joined the National Guard in the Vietnam era, they would have avoided getting shipped out, but if a soldier joined the National Guard during the Iraq era, they probably would not have avoided being shipped out.

Some people say that America gets involved in wars just for the revenue created, while other people say that without unification of the world, there will never be true peace. As a military wife in a time of war, I find myself often torn between my feelings. There is no doubt that given the choice, I would choose to have my husband home and safe, however, without being needed by the Army, my husband probably would not have a job or be able to support our family. As I did research for this paper, I found myself very grateful that I was not a wife during the War in Vietnam.

With the lack of communication, ammunition and support from other countries during the Vietnam War, I would most likely be a widow. Being a military wife during the Iraq War is not easy, but there have not been near as many casualties and while my husband still is not entirely safe, I am able to communicate with him almost every day and have no doubt that he is provided with everything that he needs. There are a great number of similarities between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War, but there are also a great number of differences.

Kenya has developed a raft of enter terrorism measures which in the past were encapsulated in different legislation such as the penal code (cap. 63). The measures range from legislative and institutional measures which spawns the domestic, regional and international levels. Despite the presence of these measures, the threat of terror persists. Key to all civil liberties is to point out our human rights which are not Just for law-abiding citizens and the best among the Hawaiian but also for the worst among us, including those convicted of heinous crimes or those on trial for horrendous acts of terrorism.

The paper seeks to enlighten on that there is delicate balance that is depicted when enacting and enforcing a legislation which may have a great impact on the civil liberties on a people and how this delicate balance may be achieved. My view is that the law will often tend to overlap with the civil liberties of the individual in the society whether the perpetrator or not, the strategy that should be employed is to what extent to these civil liberties have to be limited and which of these civil liberties that can be limited.

These acts of terror thrive in the freedom of democracies: the redeem of association, expression and movement enjoyed in a liberal democracy are conducive to the planning and execution of acts of gross violence, designed to destabilize or destroy State structures, and to advance particular ideological ends. A delicate balance may be less in evidence than fervor for erosion of civil liberties in response to perceived crises. In the past years, unlawful detention was rampant mostly affecting Somali refugees who were detained in Kenya without any charger .

The recent piece of legislations has wrought up complains mostly from the Muslims ND the human rights activist who have given arguments depicting deprivation of fundamental freedoms and violation of the constitution. Some of these civil liberties that are affected are privacy, expression, media, security, conscience, religion, belief, opinion, ownership and access to property. The Act seeks to give reasons why these liberties are restricted but the question arises as to the actual implementation: that the law enforcers will not in any way be biased.