Military "Interventions" in the War Against Terrorism

Military operations in the first 10 years of anti-terrorism war included armed combats in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as occasional bombings, armed interventions and support of American army and allies towards local anti-terrorism combat in Pakistan, Somalia, Philippines, Yemen, Kashmir and Mali. Unlike the military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and later in Syria as well, the ones in other aforementioned countries and in the region of Kashmir were not directed against those countries or their regimes, but were, under the auspices of a global unconventional “War on Terrorism” along with their governments, more or less, organized and conducted against the terrorists hiding or acting in or from those lands.

Involvement in direct military operations in Afghanistan, that gained legitimacy through the UN Resolution, included, aside from the United States and local oppositionists, 20 other countries - members of NATO, that were asked to participate through article no.5 of the Washington Contract of this organization. However, after the successful military operation in Afghanistan, that represented merely a beginning of global clash with international terrorists for Bush’s administration, transatlantic allies parted their ways. Apparently, the majority of other countries, lead by the key members of the EU (Germany and France), were against interventions in Iraq without a mandate of UN Security Council, because they were aware that such action would lead to the endless conflict against completely undefined enemy, which did not stop US, backed up by Great Britain and with the assistance from Australia and a small number of countries members of NATO, from performing it. Even though the American president Bush tried to make it look like the US had wide international support for that war, it was quite the opposite.

The invasion of Iraq in order to overthrow Saddam Hussein prompted anti-American mood in the world, managed to divide Europe, that is, cast suspicion on the genuine goals of the US, and in the same time weakened the forces and resources from Afghanistan. Many experts and analysts see the reason for its initiation differently than they are portrayed, especially since no evidence of possession of weapons of mass destruction was found and neither was the proof that there was a bond between Hussein’s regime and Al-Qaeda. According to them, the main reason and motive was establishing control over rich oil sources, and strategic control over the area in case of possible invasion on Iran and other Arab countries. 

International support towards American “preventive” war was significantly diminished by the invasion of Iraq, disregarding the UN, and especially because after the occupation no incriminating evidence was found that would connect that country and its government with the attacks of 9/11. Not only that Iraq didn’t pose a terrorist threat to the world, as the Americans portrayed it to the international community, but the threat only became real by Al-Qaeda’s rehabilitation and the establishment of Islamic State in this area after American invasion on this country under the auspices of global anti-terrorism war. Today, along with Syria, it represents a hot-spot of testing all terrorist tactics and a source of indoctrination of extreme Islamism, which is representing terrorism as a resistance of “holy soldiers” against “infidels” through fanatical interpretation of Quran and misuse of Islam as a religion.

The war in Iraq was, militarily speaking, successful, but destructive in every other aspect. The US weren’t nearly as efficient enough in the stabilization of the situation in that country as they were in its occupation. Not only that it didn’t bring democracy and prosperity to Iraq, but it completely destroyed it. After the utter chaos that was brought upon that country, it became a fertile ground for terrorism because its occupation was used as a motive for extremist recruitment and inspiration. That has lead to even greater instability in the Middle East, the rehabilitation of Al-Qaeda and creation of the most notorious extremists of the modern age – the Islamic State, that today controls a part of that country, as well as its neighboring Syria.

When it comes to Afghanistan, even though the Taliban regime was overthrown with Bin Laden’s assassination, then, reducing Al-Qaeda’s operational power and establishing some form of democratic system and the institution of state, the results of long and very expensive war aren’t satisfying, because that country, along with Iraq, still represents a crisis area and a fertile ground that is breeding international terrorism. The stabilization of security of this country requires the revitalization of its whole society, lead by the economic recovery, which requires both, time and money, which are unfortunately lacking due to the Global Economic Crisis and European Migrant Crisis.

Considering that Afghan society doesn’t have a democratic tradition and that religious and political spheres of life are not separated, the process of its forced democratization, whose final outcome represents guaranteed freedom of speech, elections, media, human rights, equality and, above all, the rule of earthly law, will be long and difficult. Aside from that, it will also be very expensive, excluding the high price that was already paid, both in lives and money, which is why there’s been a question for a while now about its overall profitability. It’s clear that it is necessary to achieve certain perquisites lead by social-economic improvement of the entire nation in order to change the people’s perception, and when firm democratic state institutions and stable politics are formed, it is necessary to keep them under close observation and, if necessary, intervene in order to ensure their sustainability and preservation. In other words, such forcefully imposed democracy, without its historical roots and in a country that is under extreme religious influence, and with tribal society that never knew or acknowledged central authority, isn’t and cannot be self-sustainable.

As well as in Afghan example, it turned out that in Iraq also, the overthrowing of “cast out” regime and the establishment of some form of democracy in order to stop terrorists from organizing, and disabling their actions, isn’t effective. Unlike Afghanistan, that had always been greatly affected by religion (Islam) and that had a significantly weaker democratic tradition, Iraq, as a secular state, had a less present fundamentalist and extremist influence. Besides, Iraq was significantly more developed than Afghanistan, that, unlike Iraq, hardly had any infrastructure and natural resources and whose population was mostly primitive and uneducated. However, similarly to Afghanistan, it is all the more likely that forced and therefore unstable democracy, will collapse if it isn’t under constant international supervision.