20 July 2023, NIICE Commentary 8710
Shreya Sinha
The coordinated terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, targeting the United States of America’s financial centre in New York, its military headquarters at the Pentagon, and its civilian air transportation system, left an indelible mark on the nation’s memory. In response, the United States, along with its NATO allies and the UN Security Council, acted promptly and resourcefully to safeguard its citizens in the immediate aftermath. They implemented various measures to enhance citizen protection, created new government agencies, and launched multiple military operations overseas with the goal of eradicating threats and promoting stability under the pretext of declaring a “war on terror.”
Following the massive and lethal attacks of 9/11 on the US, by the Al-Qaeda, American military forces entered Afghanistan with the aim of dismantling the group’s operations and capturing its leader, Osama bin Laden. Subsequently, claims suggesting that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein harboured weapons of mass destruction were employed to rationalize the invasion of Iraq as an extension of the US war on terror. Consequently, in March 2003, the Republic of Iraq was invaded by a US-led coalition also consisting of the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland. Although Saddam Hussein was overthrown, no evidence of weapons of mass destruction was ever discovered. Contrary to the pledged regime change and establishment of democracy in Iraq, the aftermath of the US-led war inflicted deep wounds on Iraq, affecting its people and culture in profound ways.
The US-led intervention in Iraq commenced in 2003 and lasted until 2011, resulting in numerous waves of significant displacement. The count of internally displaced people (IDPs) surged from zero registered in 2003 to 2.6 million in 2007. When the US officially declared the end of its combat operations in December 2011, the number of Iraqi IDPs had reduced to 1.3 million. Nevertheless, with the emergence, expansion, and eventual decline of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) between 2013 and 2019, the IDP figures escalated once more, peaking at 4.4 million in 2015. As of 2022, approximately 1.2 million individuals remained internally displaced throughout the country. Additionally, millions of more Iraqis became refugees and ended up in the neighbouring countries of Syria and Jordan. By 2022, the United Nations had documented a total of 345,305 Iraqi refugees, predominantly residing in Germany (44 percent), Jordan (10 percent), and Iran (10 percent). The human cost of war with a number of lives and human rights being compromised, was colossal with at least 210,090 civilians being killed in war-related violence since 2003. In addition, Iraq’s cultural heritage and education were also severely impacted.
However, although the initial promise of the American military campaign aimed at democratisation of Iraq through war, it eventually resulted in significant divisions among Americans and the estrangement of crucial US allies. While looking back, a substantial 62 percent Americans believed that it was not a worthwhile endeavour, along with even some Republicans who had initially supported President Bush’s war on terror now acknowledge the Iraq War as counter-productive and hence a mistaken course of action. Over the past two decades, the protective measures undertaken may have indeed yielded significant improvements in security within the United States, reducing the risk of foreign terrorist attacks. However, these gains came at substantial human, financial, and strategic expenses.
Presently, the country has enhanced its domestic security against foreign threats, but it now grapples with an upsurge in domestic terrorist challenges. Moreover, the United States’ endeavours to champion freedom and democratic governance globally have encountered setbacks. Instead of progress, there has been stagnation and regression in freedom worldwide since 2005. Furthermore, mounting pressures on America’s own democratic system have intensified significantly in recent years, posing further challenges to its stability and values. The costs incurred, both in terms of resources and the impact on democratic principles, necessitate a careful re-evaluation of the nation’s approach to security and international engagement moving forward.
Over the course of two decades, the US has acknowledged the necessity of redefining national security and giving greater prominence to non-military and non-traditional instruments of national power. After a few years of implementing the initial US policy response to 9/11 through its military approach, its limitations were recognised. During this period, a growing number of political leaders, policymakers, and analysts have been advocating for a shift in priorities, emphasising on the importance of diplomacy, economic tools, and political and ideological engagement as essential components of the nation’s security strategy. This recognition marked a turning point in US foreign and security policy as it sought to diversify its approach in order to incorporate a broader range of instruments to address the complex challenges posed by global security threats.
Eventually, in the international system, new transnational challenges like pandemics and cybersecurity have arisen, requiring novel approaches to address them effectively. Additionally, state competitors such as China and Russia have adopted more assertive positions in the global arena, altering the dynamics of international relations. While the United States concentrated on combating terrorist networks in the aftermath of 9/11, the broader global landscape has undergone significant transformations. This shift further prompted a need for a more adaptable and comprehensive approach to global affairs to safeguard its interests and promote stability in an ever-changing world.
Over the years and across multiple administrations, the United States has justified its use of military action abroad by employing a broad interpretation of “collective self-defense.” However, although the US-led action in Iraq signified an action, rather than a reaction, the US security policy has evolved to incorporate a more civilian-focused approach, prioritizing the protection of human rights, better than before.
Achieving a delicate balance between safeguarding national security objectives and preserving democratic liberties requires careful consideration and thoughtful deliberation of potential trade-offs. The historical context of the United States’ war on terror and the subsequent challenges in securing the nation against terrorism while upholding democracy, rule of law, and fundamental human rights underscore the importance of adopting a balanced approach to national security. Such an approach should prioritize the protection of individual rights while effectively countering terrorism to ensure the safety and well-being of all citizens. Striking this equilibrium is crucial in upholding the principles that define the nation’s identity and values.
Shreya Sinha is a Research Fellow at the Otto-Suhr Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany and a Doctoral Candidate at the Centre for European Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.
