Two Spins on the US “War on Terror” Essay Example for Free

Two Spins on the US War on Terror es hypothesiseThe phratry 11 tragedy has engendered the US warfare on solicitudeism that was launched to restore peace and cosmea order. This, of course, echoes the boldness of the supply administration. Other groups expect argued that the war on terror failed to remedy terrorism since it has turn out to be an act of terror itself. Instead of bringing peace, numerous individuals have analyzed the war on terror as an attempt of the US to re-establish itself as Empire. The long competing discourses for and against the US attack of Iraq have a great deal left the common citizen confused and apathetic regarding the discharge. This melodic theme argues in the concluding part that it is not rich to be trapped in the various twistings relating to the war on terror. More than ever, the times necessitate for individuals to spill up and suffice a policy-making stand. Introduction After the September 11 tragedy, the US has interpreted on a r ole to defend its nation even the adult male from what it perceives as terrorists. This maneuver is grounded on various political and economic policies that have been championed and criticized by different peoples all over. The eventual result of this globular campaign to curb the spread of terrorism is the US invasion of Iraq.Four years after the US, coupled Kingdom and the coalition made their move to crush the enemy, numerous groups and individuals contend that the situation has scarcely foregone worse. The US State department, on the otherwise hand, lauds the measures being taken up to now, arguing that peace dope only be achieved through a sustained and protracted war on terrorism. Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on which side one is from), the US war on terror is still rattling much at work today, making it a pressing issue gripping our nation and the world.This paper re-constructs the twain spins surrounding the issue of the US war on terror by assuming t he side of the US government activity and the opposition. The question of the hour would thus be Did the US war on terror prove beneficial or detrimental? By spin, I am borrowing Bill Mahers elementary definition of the term a lie communicated through the veneer of vague truth (Press, 2002, xi). fit in to Bill Press, spin has a vital role in the instruction political campaigns ar lay today (Press, 2002, xiii).Taken from a ball sport which is cricket, the meaning of spin has then on evolved to incriminate highly manipulative and deceptive techniques that ar selective in vision and interpretation of facts, values and asseveratements. oneness of the most popular strategies used for spin is non-denial denial. It is much related to the way of talking in which the statements are constructed to assume unproven truths. Ambiguity and skirting, rejecting validity of hypothetical values, and appealing to internal policies these constitute the strategy and manner of spinning.Those wh o are skilled in spinning have developed a keen sense of clock that allows them to manipulate the people especially during tragic times kindred the September 11 tragedy. For instance, when British political advisor and press officer Jo Moore sent an email to her department stating that Its now a really good day to get out everything we want to bury, the statement was manipulated to mean that Moore was insulting those who died and got buried during the September 11 tragedy (Watt, 2001). The trouble, apparently caused by spin, forced Jo Moore to resign.An individual skilled at spinning truths are called spin doctors. Today, the term spin doctor interestingly connotes nearly all politicians and bureaucrats. People from the government have often been vilified for their supposed attempts to conceal the truth from the people. From comedy shows to news editorial, government officials have now capture popular figures to be poked at. Spins definition as false discourses implies that it i s propagated in order to make the people believe a particular political agenda.However, this operative definition doesnt suggest that the two competing sides regarding the US war on terror are both false. On the contrary, moments of truth are revealed by the very act of critically examining whatever is being handed to us whether by those protecting the situation quo or those who oppose it. Therefore, at the offset, the this papers disclaimer is that it is impotential to assume the two sides of the issue as if an individual is ideology-free and bias-free.For the purposes of this exercise, however, this paper will attempt to present the arguments by positioning the actor in the shoes of each sides defenders. This paper will first do a spin of the pro- War side followed by a negative spin launched by the anti-war side. In the concluding part, the author will make his own stand and forward his own recommendations. War as path to world peace Ever since the US has been attacked by terro rists, it has become a necessity to protect the country from possible future attacks.The collapse of Word Trade Center, the mark of economic prosperity in the world, left a deep wound that gave President Bush no other choice but to fight back. concord to President Bush, the death of thousands of Americans, generated by Islamic fundamentalists, must be avenged (Bush defends, 2005). The US war on terror is thus the answer for the restoration of peace. One of the measures undertaken by the resilient US government was the passage of Patriot Act. Now, any suspected terrorist may be searched and arrested without warrant (USA Patriot Act, 2001).The opposition would say that this law tramps down the right of the people. Apparently, the opposition does not see the bigger picture. It is better to sacrifice a bit of our liberties in order for our country to be protecting itself. Those opposing the efforts made by the Bush administration prove guilty of not wanting the US to recover from the d evastating September 11 attacks. Thus, it is important, more than ever, that the measures the Bush administration has initiated be reasserted for the sake of national unity and progress.Securing US phones One nasty lesson Americans have learned from the September 11 attacks is that the countrys borders should now be strongly secured from terrorists and other possible threats. The boundaries are regularly crossed by 330 trillion non-American citizens. It does not come as a surprise then that terrorists were able to gain easy access to the US (US Patriot Act, 2001). Not only terrorists but also criminals, illegal immigrants, drug addicts, and smugglers enter the US and threaten US security.The changing and speedily developing atmosphere of terror allows new chances for another attack. The US Patriot Act (2001) therefore asserts that border book must be strengthened. President George Bush points out two main principles of border control 1) Americas state boundaries must contribute to the lawful trade and travel in the most efficient way 2) Border control must provide reliable protection against all possible threatening factors like terrorism, drug traffic, epidemics, arms traffic and others (Guild, 2003).In the 2003 Budget, $11 billion was allotted for boundaries security and $380 million for the immigration and naturalization Service. The plan is to build a modern entry-exit visa system that would surely secure the US from terrorists and other threats. This additional financing allows the border agencies to bring into effect reliable measures that would protect the US from irrelevant menaces, while at the same time letting legitimate goods and travelers cross the boundaries easily (Guild, 2003).An amount of $619 million was also given to the inspection budget of the Customs Service. This additional financing allows the Customs Service to carry out its role to thwart dangerous goods like weapons of mass destruction. Particularly, the extra supporting all ows the Customs Service to engage about 800 new inspectors and make use of the most advanced technologies that will protect the US from denigrative foreign goods (Guild, 2003). The 2003 Budget also increased by $1.2 billion the financing of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The amount of money which totals to $5. 3 billion includes appropriate funding for constructing the entry-exit visa system. (Patel, 2003) The increase of funding is bound to help the INS have more patrol agents and inspectors in the northern boundary and to install incorporate information systems providing efficient and precise data-sharing among the security agents.The entry-exit tracking system will help improve the bleed of legitimate human influx while preventing dangerous or illegal individuals from getting across the state boundaries (Patel, 2003). The increased budget for border security therefore showcases the sincere efforts of President Bush to protect the American people. Although t he budget is a bit expensive, it cannot be denied that the reward of security and safety remains inestimable.