George W. Bush During Afghanistan's War on Terror

ALFONSO OTERO MIRELES

FOREING POLICY

George W. Bush during Afghanistan's War on Terror

POLITICAL ANALYSIS BASED ON DONNA H. KERR

The term War on Terror refers to an ongoing, worldwide campaign against terrorism led by the United States and supported by several other countries, most notoriously England and members of NATO. The term was first used under George W. Bush's administration following the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States, where 2996 people lost their lives and more than 6000 others were injured. Within months after the 9/11 attacks, the US sent troops to Afghanistan because this was believed to be the operational base for Al-Qaeda, at the same time the US looked to dethrone the Taliban regime and ''Bring Democracy'' to this middle eastern country. Two years after the occupation, and without yet finding Bin Laden, the US embarks in yet another military invasion, this time against Iraq. This War on Terror has been worldwide known as the Bush War, due to his effusive support and controversy.

The implementing agent during Afghanistan's war is without a doubt the Bush administration, they are the ones who started it, developed it and spent the most money on implementing the war.

The authorizing agent in this situation would arguably be the United Nations because According to the UN's rules, The US had to get approval from the UN's Security Council in order to go ahead with the wars. In the case of Afghanistan, the UN accepted the occupancy, backing up their decision with the consent of most members plus an official report that stated that around 70% of deaths in this country were caused by the Taliban regime.

The Conditional Imperative was the danger that Middle-Eastern Terrorist groups represent for the United States and the world and how nobody, not even the United States was safe from another possible attack. The recurring conditions of post-traumatic fear and terrorism fobia became a part of the everyday life of the average North American; the constant news reports on violence in some Middle Eastern countries was also a condition that needed to be ''fixed'' by the US's democracy

Since its start the United States has maintained itself stable in all of his policies regarding Afghanistan, they have indeed substituted policies in Iraq (after leaving the country) but as to Afghanistan they have only talked and promised to change it, but up until this day there has been not a notorious substitution of policies.

All important declaration were made publicly, virtually everyone in the world was aware of the US's decision of invading Afghanistan, and most of Bush's declarations towards the topic. Of course the relevant public in this case would be the US's government and population, the UK's government and population and any other country that supported or was against the war, also the United Nations council and of course and Afghanistan's entire population and ruling powers.

GEORGE W.BUSH PERFORMANCE DURING IRAQ's WAR

Bush's administration decided to go ahead and send troops to Iraq in 2003. With a similar approach as in Afghanistan, the occupation was led by George W. Bush and supported mainly by the UK. The main reasons where the belief that the Iraqi government was harboring weapons of mass destruction and some claims that linked Iraqi officials with terrorist group A-Qaeda. The lack of evidence of this weapons and the high costs of the two wars during times of economic instabilities led to an avalanche of national and international criticism and lack of support for the Bush administration, even though no consistent proof was (or has up to this day) been presented, George W. Bush won the following reelections and the North American troops remained officially in Iraq's soil until December 2011. The military prescience of the US still remains in Afghanistan up-until this day.

Bush's administration main goals and objectives was primarily finding this infamous Weapons of Mass destruction, hunt down and get rid of all officials linked to Al-Qaeda, this included the nation's leader Sadaam Hussein, who aside from being accused of crimes against humanity he was also believed to be linked to Al-Qaeda an of course to ''Bring Democracy'' to this country.

The UN gave Iraq one last opportunity through the resolution 1441 to come clean about the weapons of mass destruction. Iraq allowed inspectors to go and search for them. The United States blamed Iraq's government of not being cooperative, and went ahead and used the force even though the resolution didn't authorize the use of force even if they had been found. This is when the first option for Bush comes, he could've easily gone the other way and simply acccept the fact that there may not have been any secret weapons in the first place and not does anything relevant in Iraq, including not removing Sadam Hussein from power. A second option could have been accepting the UN's statement of not using the force, admitting that there isn't enough proof of the harboring of weapons but still destitute Hussein from power, and install a US hosted presidency. The third option would be also to dethrone Hussein, stop looking for weapons but stop not installing a US government overseas and simply let the Iraqi people decide for themselves.

If Bush simply retracted from all accusations against Iraq, sent the troops back and not do anything against Hussein, there would've been an initial reaction of public opinion concerning mainly on Bush's indecision and lack of consistent information. It would be hard to simply accept they were wrong and just leave. Moneywise, the costs of sending troops would still affect the economy but not as much as it did in reality, of course depending on when the decision would've been made.

Supposing that Bush had accepted