Neelab Khan
Overarching statements like ‘an embarrassing defeat’, ‘the US left with its tail between its legs” are good for sensational headlines and evoking reformist fervor against the United States, but as far as critical understanding of global affairs is concerned, things need to be dealt with more precision; through academic lenses. Though theoretical frameworks are dismissed for not having apt applicability as allegedly, there is an irredeemable gap between them and praxis, they provide just the precision needed to make intellectual deductions.
First and foremost, one needs to understand America’s War on Terror, a retort, one may call in political jargon, in response to the attack on the integrity, sovereignty and security of the Global Super power. It may be diagnosed under the lens of foreign policy analysis, the first level being the individual or the leader in-charge which may vary obviously as per personal political approach and inclinations. Domestic politics of the state shapes this heavily, as the leader has political stakes on domestic grounds just as much as they do internationally. They could prioritize local political clout at the cost of risking international reputation for gaining votes or vice versa, as many populist leaders have been observed doing and various frameworks can be applied to this. It is recurring with Republican leaders, with the very recent Trump, who, despite being ridiculed for being a mad man and major international backlash, has established his place among the elite and had an increased vote in his second election. In case of the War on Terror, there were incidents of Mullah Omar trying to open communication before action was taken, with Bush offering no incentive; it was clear he was adamant to move forward with the war. It may have been seen as an extreme, ruthless way to inflict retribution. Gauging the domestic front, since the 9/11, Bush gained an 11% in voter support, while garnering disoriented skepticism internationally. On the international level, he shaped the narrative of a ‘Just war’ to further his aims. It has two broad elements as per international law: Jus ad Bellum: it includes a competent authority, cause and intention, and Jus in Bello- it has principles of discrimination and proportion. A contemporary addition is the Jus Post Bellum, the responsibility to rebuild in case of initiating war.
As bizarre or irrational a state’s decisions may seem at that point in time, they may be understood through seeing a state as a ‘rational actor’, something the International Relations lens of Neo-Realism/Structural Realism emphasizes on. This ‘rationality’ is based on certain salient features that remain constant on a state level, which is the second level of foreign policy analysis. Considering the War on Terror, it was a combination of both short-term objectives and long-term aims. The four objectives initially included the capture of Osama Bin Laden and bringing Al Qaeda to justice, to handicap the them as a threat to the United States, to make Afghanistan incapable of harboring terrorists and to break the international linkages of the Taliban through a regime change, while in the long term aims, the eradication of Terrorism, and added later, a state conducive to democratic growth and a peaceful, stable government. The success or failure of the War can be deduced on the basis of the aims and objectives achieved, which as general public consensus goes, were not.
While they are two distinct levels, it is to be understood both are linked inextricably and America’s or any country’s foreign policy cannot be analyzed based on either, but should be on both. Through is the Liberal School of thought, one may understand that a country that started off in the name of democracy, individualism and enlightenment under bourgeois revolution, has become another oligarchy of a sort- with the corporations in charge directly or indirectly. The paradigms can now be also explained through different lenses of Political Economy: The society is that of hyper-capitalism and it has seeped into every socio-political aspect. In this case, the corporations are the hegemons with heavily influencing the political arena through lobbying and monetary means, with a growing military-industrial complex. Declaring a policy failure is easy, but one needs to understand the incentives of war economy had it kept protracted. The United States, particularly in terms of the CIA spends around $13 billion on Research and Development; though they are heavily criticized for not having on-ground expertise, they did see economic advantage in the war, spurring growth in the weapons industry. Under the Realist theoretical lens, their pursuit and hegemonic control remains undeterred: they have been able to establish bases throughout the region, in former Soviet Republics, Central Asia and the Middle East and continue to be the world super power.
As far as the War’s narrative-building is concerned, it can be scrutinized under the Post-Structuralist Theory: it has continues to contain something Michel Focoult would term as the ‘regime of truth’, the control and discourse of knowledge through which hegemons retain power. One of its elements is forming a narrative around binaries. That includes the emphasis on ‘us vs. them’ sentiments, with the ‘terrorists’ being the collective enemies of a collective, civilized ‘us’, the US and its allies. This narrative has been mostly West-centric with other countries being on bandwagon with the global hegemon. A globalized version of democracy has been promoted as the need of the time which was to be installed at all costs in the Afghan region even, especially due to its current position being a threat to the zeitgeist of our time. This narrative even monopolized media, which is again mostly corporation-run. The entire War on Terror propaganda can be deconstructed through this lens. As of current situation, America continues to shrug off accountability and responsibility by now blaming the Afghan government, as they have not played their due role despite the US equipping and supporting them enough. The US has obviously even highlighted Pakistan’s role. The entire media narrative still revolves around the hegemon’s discourse, with matters being exaggerated and far from reality of the country’s common people and promoting an elite’s perspective mostly. This includes the apprehension build around the Taliban’s rule, the human rights violations and disregard of democratic norms it entails, whereas though there have been controversial steps taken such as the recent hanging, locals are reported to have said impacted day-to-day life much.
This is exactly why the need for critically evaluating and analyzing is more essential than ever before. In a time of information warfare, intellectual deconstructing should be the first resort rather than concluding and assuming based on mass consumption. The War on Terror at that time may be seen as irrational, but it was rational as per state policy. And as far as the exit from it is concerned, they simply saw it in their best interest to leave right away and invest no more time or money; credibility is the least of concerns when it comes to US rationality currently, else they would not have left like that. While these elements of the mentioned theories were just tips of the ice-berg, the theoretical realm has ever-expansive insight to offer. Happenings throughout need to be observed through academic lenses rather than pathos and fanaticism, and this is exactly what these frameworks help with.
