International Relations: Lessons from Israel-Hezbollah War and Global War on Terrorism

Running head: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author note

1
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
1.
In his seminal work titled Bounding the Global War on Terrorism, author Jeffrey Record
puts forth several arguments against the United States policy of global war on terrorism (GWOT)
(2). The U.S. unleashed its so-called on war terrorism after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
However, the author argues that the war raged by the U.S. government on terrorism was highly
ambiguous as it tried to conflate different entities into an indivisible threat. The government has
assumed, states the author, a “multiplicity of enemies” that include the producers of the weapons
of mass destruction (WMD), rogue states, regional, national and global terrorist organizations
and terrorism. In doing so, it has lessened its moral clarity by involving in unwarranted conflict
with states that posed no real threats.
The basic argument of Record however is the involvement of the U.S. in the Iraq War.
The author is correct in pointing out that the government had conflated Saddam Hussein’s Iraq
and the al-Qaeda as “a single, undifferentiated terrorist threat”. This turned out to be a major
strategic error on part of the government. Involving in the Iraq War meant that the valuable
resources that were meant for protection from further attack from the al-Qaeda or other related
terrorist groups were being wasted in an avoidable war. The author further argues that the Iraq
War, in which the government unnecessarily was involved giving excuse of it being integral to
GWOT, was actually a diversion from it. The author’s argument is justified because the key
player of the 9/11 attacks was al-Qaeda and its leader Osama bin-Laden and not Iraq. The U.S.
government carried an all-out attack on Islamic nations considered rogue states including Iraq
instead of systematically strategizing against the main culprits.

2
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
The author claims that GWOT has been extremely unfocused and the promises made by
the U.S. government under it are way more than it can achieve. Further, it violates the basic
“strategic principles of discrimination and concentration”. This statement made by Record is also
valid because the ideals held high by the U.S. regarding equality and fairness for all has been
compromised by its GWOT strategy. The unprecedented and unfortunate attacks on minority
citizens living in the U.S. are a glaring example of this strategy. Nonetheless, it is also necessary
to point out that the strategies did manage to avert further domestic terror attacks on America and
helped the country recuperate with the loss.
2.
The start of the Iraq War by the U.S. in 2003 marked the beginning of a long period of
unwanted conflict and a drain of resources of the country. In the 2007 post by journalist Michael
Slackman of The New York Times, a valid point regarding America’s occupation of Iraq and its
repercussions of the neighboring countries have been made (4). The writer makes one key
observation about America’s involvement in the affairs of Iraq and that is its underlying motive
to force the establishment of a government in Iraq that could effectively spay Iran. The article
further states that the U.S. has been completely wrong in advising Iran not meddle in Iraq’s
affairs, whereas it is the U.S that is doing so. The involvement of U.S. in Iraq has been
questioned since the beginning because the administration has been shifting from one agenda to
the other. At first, the Bush administration stated that it went to war with Iraq to suppress the
imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s WMD and links to terrorist organizations. Then, it
claimed that the war is to establish democracy and restore peace in the disturbed Middle East.
However, no weapons of mass destruction until today have been revealed neither have any ties
with al-Qaeda or other terror groups have been found. Policies of the Bush administration related