War has become a fundamental component of the United States’ political reflexes, as well as its strategy and legal principles, in the worldwide fight against international terrorism. Calling the battle against terrorism a “war” has a number of disadvantages. For starters, using the word “war” confers undeserved prestige and validity on the enemy. Second, it exaggerates military operations’ importance in combating global terrorism. Third, the US twisted both domestic and international legal standards to meet the notion of a “war on terror.”
The US government was not able to suppress all the terrorist attacks as planned. In fact, it was able to build more and stronger enmity than before. Since many innocent lives were lost, many people have hated the US than they did before and think that the move was only to accomplish a goal the US had in its mind since time immemorial.
Fourth, the Americans’ link between the fight on terrorism and the notion of preventative war has alarmed the anti-terrorist coalition’s allies and damaged the anti-terrorist alliance. Fifth, the situation has worsened as a result of the relationship with the Iraq war, which has heightened anti-Western and anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East and the Islamic world. Finally, the ‘war on terror’ has diverted attention away from certain pressing political issues that fuel terrorism in the Middle East.
Being a decision-maker in the US, one should test the validity of the assumptions. First, it would have been worthwhile if the decision-maker emphasized the empathy and sympathy that was all over the world over the US before the 9/11 attacks (Filkins, 2011). This would have helped the country identify the hideout of Osama and his troop within no time.