Marieke Bakker | Bachelor thesis political science | June 30, 2013
Bush versus Obama
COUNTERING TERRORISM
“No group or nation should mistake America’s intentions: We will not rest until terrorist groups of global reach have been found, have been stopped, and have been
defeated.”(President George W. Bush, November 6 2001)
Introduction
This thesis deals with the question if there is a difference between the Bush and Obama administration. To answer this question, there will be given answer to another one, which is what the differences and similarities between the anti-‐terror policies of the Bush and Obama administration are. This is relevant, because although terrorism is no new phenomenon and also existed long before the attack of 9/11, the reaction to it changed significantly since. Military force for example, was not used for combating terrorism until the attack. ‘Prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, American legal policy reserved the use of military force primarily for campaigns against enemy states. Terrorism, even on an international scale, largely remained a criminal matter to be prosecuted in civilian federal courts.’ (Yin, 2012: 468) This means that the anti-‐terror policies of the United States changed substantially under President Bush, which shows us that policies can differ under different presidents. Therefore, many also believed that when Obama came to office, the anti-‐terror policies of the United States would change as a result. Five years later, people are divided when answering this question.
Before the 9/11 attack, the United States had a different approach to terrorism and military force was not used as a tool to counter it. When in 1993 for example two terrorist detonated a truck bomb whereby six men were killed and over 1000 people were injured, ‘the Clinton Department of Justice investigated the attacks, identified and apprehended the perpetrators, and prosecuted them for federal crimes.’ (Yin, 2012: 469) The same thing was done when other terrorists blew up the Murrah Federal Building in 1995, whereby 168 people were killed and almost 700 people were injured. This changed under President Bush after the attack on the World Trade Centre.
‘Rhetorically, President Bush promised "to strike back with a 'hammer of vengeance"' against the perpetrators of the attack. That hammer took the form of military airstrikes
against the Taliban strongholds and al-‐Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, not of criminal indictments.’ (Yin, 2011: 469)
President Bush promised his country that revenge would be taken by the United States and that the people who caused the attacks of 9/11, would be caught and
prosecuted. Soon, the idea came up to attack terrorists within their own territory and intervention in Afghanistan was a logical choice. The ‘Bush administration was also concerned about the alliance between terrorist organizations and the countries in which they were based. The president pledged, only nine days after the 9/11 attack, to
“pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.” Afghanistan, al-‐Qaida’s home, was thus a predictable target.’ (Pressman, 2009: 153). However, the reaction to the attacks of 9/11 spread out further then Afghanistan. Iraq was believed to have Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and there was fear that terrorists could have access to these. Therefore there was a concern for those ‘regimes who seek chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons’, which could threaten the United States and the world (Bush in Pressman, 2009: 154-‐155). North Korea, Iran and Iraq were believed to have WMD and became countries on which the Bush administration aimed its policies. Because the Bush administration was concerned about the alliances between terrorists and the countries in which they were based, these regimes were labelled as the most dangerous regimes (Pressman, 2009: 154)
When Obama became president in 2009, people believed this would mean a difference in policy and more specifically, in anti-‐terror policy. In a speech he gave in 2002 he stated: “I don’t oppose all wars. . . . What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. . . . ‘(Obama in Wayne, 2011: 294). This was one of many statements he made in which he criticized the anti-‐terror policies of the Bush
administration and a changed anti-‐terror policy became a central motif of his campaign message. Obama became associated with change, a word often used on campaign posters of him. A symbol of this change for some was that President Obama did not use the term ‘war on terror’, but instead he used ‘Overseas Contingency Operation’
2007, before he got elected, he stated: ‘When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy . . . getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” (Obama in Wayne, 2011: 295) Barack Obama was seen as more anti-‐war than George W. Bush, among others because he did not call the policies of the United States the ‘war on terror’ and because he criticized the Bush administration for the intervention in Iraq. However, under his presidency he expanded the military operation in Afghanistan to twice as large as under the Bush administration. It is therefore not surprising that there is a debate about whether there is a difference between the anti-‐terror policies of the Bush and Obama administration.
Literature review
Before Barack Obama became president, many believed he would bring change to the United States, within their domestic policy as well as within their foreign relations. The campaign posters of Obama had even written the word “change” on them. However, four years later, the opinions are divided, particularly on the United States’ counter terrorism policy. Although there are many scholars who believe that the Obama
administration is clearly different from the Bush administration, such as Thurston, Nau, Sanger and Baker, there are also many scholars who see a continuation of the Bush administration in the anti-‐terror policies of President Obama, such as Pious and Yin. All these scholars however refer to different aspects when they analyse if there is a difference between the Bush and Obama administration. This section will elaborate more on their positions within this debate. However, because these scholars refer to different aspects of the anti-‐terror policies of the Presidents, there are no static positions within this debate. Consequently I have decided to outline some of their common arguments to give a broader insight within this debate and their positions. As showed within the introduction, the reaction to terrorism changed significantly since 9/11. Before this attack, military force was ‘reserved primarily for
campaigns against enemy states’ (Yin, 2012: 468). Also, terrorists were prosecuted in civilian federal court, just like other perpetrators. Under President Bush however, this policy changed and the terrorists caught for the attacks of 9/11 were from then on prosecuted outside civilian federal courts. Many scholars however believed the anti-‐ terror policies of the Bush administration changed when Barack Obama came to office. In general they believed that Barack Obama would be less of a war President then his predecessor. Many years later, there are still scholars that see a significant difference between the administrations regarding their anti-‐terror policies. As Sanger and Baker stated, ‘Although Mr. Obama has put a renewed focus on the Afghan war and increased C.I.A. drone strikes against militants in Pakistan, the strategy rejects Mr. Bush’s focus on counterterrorism as the organizing principle of security policy. Those efforts “to counter violent extremism” — Mr. Obama avoids the word Islamic — “are only one element of our strategic environment and cannot define America’s engagement with the world.”’ (Sanger & Baker, 2010: 2)
An aspect where most scholars agree on is the difference in interrogation methods between the two administrations. Within the Bush administration there was the view that all the techniques used within their interrogation program were legally permissible and could not be seen as torture, this included waterboarding (Morrison, 2012). Within this administration, actions would be distinguished between those ‘that would cause permanent injury and those that would cause temporary suffering, with only the latter supposedly authorized so as to distinguish it from its definition of torture.’ (Pious, 2011: 268). Remarkable is that the definition used by the Bush
administration for torture is not the same as the definition the international Convention against Torture uses. There, such forms of interrogations were seen as creating “severe mental pain or suffering” (Pious, 2011: 268). President Obama criticized these practices of the Bush administration publicly and revoked the order of Bush that had authorized these techniques. Instead, he ordered new rules for interrogations where he stated that detainees “shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment,
and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment).” (Obama in Pious, 2011: 268).
However, while many scholars agree on this change, Pious does not consider this a change under the Obama administration, because although banned, torture was still used, only different forms of torture. An example hereof is a Lebanese businessman, which was accused of fraud and was seized in Kabul. He was abused under CIA standard procedures, even after following Obama’s orders. These forms of torture ‘(‘“capture shock” shackling and searches, hypothermia, and sleep deprivation’) were used to soften them up for interrogation’, Pious states (2011: 270). A second aspect of change some scholars refer to is that the Bush administration was focused on promoting democracy, which was not so much the case under President Obama. As Nau clarifies, ‘Under President Barrack Obama, U.S. foreign policy has swung decisively in the opposite direction. Now, U.S. security interests matter more than democracy’ (2010: 1). While Obama made several statements about the importance of democracy, this was never an important aspect of his strategy. Where President Bush saw democracy as the only possible solution for countries that dealt with terrorism, ‘the Obama administration has appeared tentatively willing to countenance a lack of full democracy in these countries.’ (Thurston, 2010: 50) Thurston states this had also to do with the lack of interest for democracy promotion within this region because the Sahel region is marginal in geopolitical terms, ‘but the US reaction to events there also owes partly to changing notions of how the ‘War on Terror’ should be fought’ (Thurston,
2010: 50).
A third aspect referred to by some scholars is ‘the Obama administration’s policy of relying exclusively on the criminal justice system (including prosecutions in Article III courts) for suspected terrorists apprehended within the United States.’ (Morrison, 2012) An example hereof is prosecution of the alleged planner of the attacks of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), which’ case was transferred to federal courts under the Obama administration (Pious, 2011: 263-‐264). A final example I will outline which scholars use is that President Obama got the
American military troops out of Iraq because he believed this was not the right
battleground, as showed within the introduction. Bush saw this country as an important target, because he believed that Iraq had WMD, and therefore posed a significant threat to the United States (Pressman, 2009: 154).
Other scholars do not see a difference between the anti-‐terror policies of the Bush and Obama administration. While these scholars believe that there are some differences assignable, the Obama administration can be seen as a continuation within the bigger context. These scholars refer to aspects of their anti-‐terror policies such as the prosecution and capturing suspected combatants without criminal charges,
‘initiated or indicated plans to initiate military prosecutions of selected detainees, and used aerial drones to kill targeted al Qaeda suspects’ (Yin, 2012: 472). Another aspect these scholars refer to is that although the Obama administration made claims that rival everything filed by Obama’s predecessor, this administration had the willingness and flexibility to bring ‘long-‐languishing detainees’ to trial (Pious, 2011: 267). Also, scholars that see continuity rather than change within their anti-‐terror policies refer to appointments of staff by the Obama administration. Many of Obama’s appointments were also part of the Bush administration. An example is the
appointment of the former special advisor in the Pentagon under the Bush
administration, William Lietzgau, which became the deputy assistant secretary for detainee affairs in the department of defence in the Obama administration. Also the CIA operations were led by Steve Kappes and Mike Sulick, which were both involved in de CIA rendition, detentions and interrogations under the Bush administration (Pious,
2011: 264).
Finally, while President Obama himself stated that the decisions of Bush ‘had taken the nation “of course”’, suggesting that his anti-‐terror policies were different from the ones of his predecessor, his anti-‐terror policies was not less violent, as some
scholars suggested when referring to a general distinction (Pious, 2011: 263). Yin sees a continuation in a their violent reaction, stating that ‘as of President Obama's first official State of the Union address in 2010, there were still 196 detainees at Guantanamo Bay,
the President had decided to send additional troops to Afghanistan, and U.S. aerial drones were circling the skies of Pakistan's remote regions on hunt-‐and-‐destroy missions.' (Yin, 2012: 467)
These are just a few of the examples scholars refer to within the debate, but there are much more this literature review has not dealt with. All the arguments provided above come from different sort of data, which is why this thesis will start at the beginning of the debate, by analyzing documents of the White House. That way, this thesis gives answer to the question: ‘Is there is a difference between the Bush and Obama administration? This will be done by analyzing what the differences and
similarities are between the anti-‐terror policies of the Bush and Obama administration. By looking at the strategies of the administrations, it gives us a more detailed and objective insight than previous researches.
Definitions
As showed, this thesis will research if there is a difference between President Bush and President Obama. This will be done more specifically by researching the differences and similarities of their anti-‐terror policies. To make it clear what is meant with the concepts used within this thesis, I will define these concepts into more concrete definitions. The broadest concept within this thesis is terrorism. While this word is often used within the media, it is also not entirely clear what is meant with this term. ‘As Jenny Teichman puts it, ‘if we list all the different phenomena which are at one time or another described as terrorism in ordinary conversation, or in ordinary newspapers, or by ordinary politicians, we will end up with a huge rag-‐bag of not very similar items’ (1989). Because terrorism is a broad concept and there are several definitions of it, I chose to use the definition the Bush administration uses within their National Strategy to Combat Terrorism. Because these are also the documents this thesis focusses on within the analyses, the decision to use their definition of terrorism seems fit. The National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (NSCT) uses the following definition when
they speak of terrorism: ‘The enemy is terrorism—premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or
clandestine agents.’ (NSCT, 2003: 1) This definitions makes more clear what can be regarded as a terrorist act and more precisely what not. To begin with the clarification in the use of violence, which according to this definition has to be premeditated to qualify as terrorist violence. Also, because terrorism is always some form of violence, other crimes cannot be regarded as terrorism. Furthermore, the premeditated violence has to be politically motivated. The attack of 9/11 can be regarded as politically motivated, because whether it was motivated by religion or against the foreign policies of the United States, both forms can be regarded as political. Third, according to this
definition, terrorist violence is perpetrated against non-‐combatant targets. This excludes military targets and points to acts within the public sphere, such as with the attack of 9/11. Finally, terrorism is something that can be done by subnational groups or clandestine agents. In other words, terrorism is something done by groups. When individuals perpetrated a terrorist act, this is because they feel related to a specific
subnational group.
Al-‐Qaeda, the political Islamic group responsible for the attack of 9/11, qualifies for all these characteristics of terrorism and can therefore be qualified as a terrorist group. However, the above definition of terrorism is only used within the strategy of the Bush administration. The Obama administration only define the words affiliates and adherents clearly, although they use the word terrorism repeatedly. Because the Obama administration did not define terrorism within its strategy, I chose to include the terms the Obama administration uses for the definition of terrorism. Within this strategy affiliates are defined as groups that have aligned with al-‐Qaeda and adherents as ‘Individuals who have formed collaborative relationships with, act on behalf of, or are otherwise inspired to take action in furtherance of the goals of al-‐Qa‘ida —the
organization and the ideology—including by engaging in violence regardless of whether such violence is targeted at the United States, its citizens, or its interests.’ (NSCT, 2011: 3) These affiliates and adherents also come back within the above definition of
terrorism, namely as clandestine agents. Still, I added these definitions of affiliates and adherents because I believe these clarify what is meant with clandestine agents and therefore clarify the term terrorism.
The second term this thesis focusses on is anti-‐terror policies. Policies are ‘a set of ideas or a plan of what to do in particular situations that has been agreed officially by a group of people, a business organization, a governments or a political party’ (Website Cambridge dictionary). Because these strategies are very broad and this thesis analyses different aspects of these strategies, this definition, which refers to a set of ideas or a plan, is chosen because it includes all these different aspects. Anti-‐terror policies are therefore defined as all the ideas or plans the government of the United States agreed upon under a specific administration to counter terrorism.
Case-‐selection
Because the reactions to terrorism after the attack of 9/11 were clearly different from earlier ones, as showed above, it is interesting to research whether there are
differences in the anti-‐terror policies of the Bush and Obama administration. As Yin showed, before 9/11, military force was reserved primarily for campaigns against enemy states (Yin, 2012: 468). Terrorist were largely located and prosecuted, as was the case under President Clinton in 1993 and 1995 (Yin, 2012: 469). Because the reaction for countering terrorism changed significantly since, it is interesting to research the anti-‐ terror policies of the United States. However, many of these policies are not solely done by the United States and are policies of international cooperation. For instance, Great Britain and the Netherlands were also involved in the war on terror of President Bush. Nonetheless, the United States was the first state which decided to react in a different way against terrorism and to combat terrorism, which is why this thesis focusses on their anti-‐terror policies. The United States had set an example for other countries. Also, as the literature review showed, there is a big debate about whether there are differences between the Bush and Obama administration in their anti-‐terror policies
and the effects of their policies, which is why I chose to focus specifically on their anti-‐ terror policies. While this debate between the Bush and Obama administration also extends beyond this area, the anti-‐terror policies of the United States still are a much discussed topic within the media. This also has to do with the fact that after 9/11 other terrorist attacks, like the London and Madrid bombings, happened within western countries. As a consequence, terrorism is still a much discussed topic within the media as well as within public policy and this gives relevance to the anti-‐terror policies of
countries.
Furthermore, because the Bush administration reacted differently to terrorism then his predecessors, for instance than the Clinton administration, the change in countering terrorism since then provides a good starting point. This shows us why it is so interesting to focus on different Presidents within one country, because policies can differ significantly under different Presidents, while things may not have changed domestically. When I would compare the anti-‐terror policies of different countries this would have a different impact, because different countries deal with different domestic and international issues. Within this case, all the other factors, such as domestic issues and international relations are relatively stable, which means I can compare the
different administrations better with each other.
Analytical method
There are three documents which clearly outline the strategy of the United States in combating terrorism. Two of them are documents written under the Bush
administration, namely in 2003 and 2006, and one of them is written under the Obama administration, in 2011. As showed within the literature review, previous scholars that researched if there was a difference between the Bush and Obama administration each focused on different sources. These scholars gave answer to this question by analyzing laws implemented by the different administrations, how many troops were send to the
war on terror countries, how the different administrations interrogated terrorists and statements, interviews and speeches the Presidents gave. Because this thesis will look at different data this also means that this thesis will look from a different perspective on the debate. While the above researches focused on more detailed differences and similarities, this thesis cannot analyze such specific differences and similarities because I believe the documents of the White house will not go as far into detail as specific laws or interviews do. This creates a certain impediment, namely that I can only analyze the broader strategies of the different administrations, but not their differences and similarities in actions for example. On the other hand, this also creates an opportunity, namely that this thesis gives insight within this debate from another, broader
perspective. This thesis therefore analyses the different strategies on form, target and specifically what plan of action the administrations use to counter terrorism. Because I chose to analyze the strategies on these different categories, this thesis can make broader statements on whether there a certain categories which both administration have in common or not. This way, this thesis focusses on all the different aspects of their strategies on not only on one, as other researches did.
Because this thesis focusses on different aspects and distinguishes these from one another, I believe that there is a difference between both administrations. The largest difference between the administrations I expect to find is within their form. As the literature showed for example, the Obama administration used a different term for ‘war on terror’, which shows that this administration clearly thought about which form they used. Also, because Obama criticized the Bush administration publicly on their targets I believe that there will be a difference between this within their strategies. With regard to the last category, their plan of action, I expect these will be very similar. As the literature review showed already, both administrations use military action to fight terrorists within their own countries and the only difference scholars referred to were the interrogation methods and military troops in Iraq. Still, I believe that while some broader aspects will be the same in countering terrorism, there will be more differences within their anti-‐terror policies.
Within my analyses, I will start by defining the specific categories. These categories will be presented one by one and a further comparison of the administrations will be made on the basis of these categories. This way, all the different features of these categories will be compared and a clear comparison can be made between their anti-‐terror policies.
Analyses
As said, two of these strategies are written under the Bush administration and only one under the Obama administration. Therefore, I have more data of the strategy of the Bush administration, which means I have a broader view on this administration than of the Obama administration, which is why I also chose to look at remarkable differences
between their strategies.
I have ordered the strategies into different categories from which I think these strategies exist of. These are the categories form, target and plan of action. With the first category, form, I refer to the way the administration presents their strategy. This can be very objective, when for instance the strategy is presented without
normative ideas, but this can also be subjective, which is the case when certain things are presented as good or bad or with certain judgments. The second category, the category target, will analyze the strategies on which they are aiming at. Are these for instance all terrorist organizations, or only certain ones? Finally, the last and broadest category, the plan of action, analyses how the administrations are countering terrorism more precisely. Within the categories target and plan of action I will also analyze what the underlying thoughts of the administrations are. This can be important to analyze why the administrations counter terrorism in a particular way. Each of the categories will be presented one by one and will analyze into detail what the similarities and differences between the strategies and more specifically between the administrations are. Because this thesis will analyze different categories which include different aspects, it will give a broader answer to the research question than previous researches, which only dealt with certain aspects.
Form
Within this category there are remarkable differences between the strategies of Bush and Obama. The first thing worth noticing is that the strategy of the Bush administration repeatedly says that this act of terror is not only an act against the American people, but most importantly against their civilized society. He states that ‘The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in Washington, D.C., New York City, and Pennsylvania were acts of war against the United States of America and its allies, and against the very idea of civilized society.’ (NSCT, 2003: 1) While this statements at first hand might seem as an objective one, the reference to the war against ‘the very idea of civilized society’ says otherwise. With this statement it becomes clear that there are two groups which are at war with each other, namely those of the civilized society against the ones that are no part of this group. In other words, it is the American people and its allies against all of those who do not belong within this group and are therefore on the other side of the “good-‐bad” spectrum. This cleavage becomes even bigger when he states that there cannot even be spoken of a clash of civilizations, because the enemies are not civilized. He states that ‘The war against terrorism, therefore, is not some sort of “clash of civilizations”; instead, it is a clash between civilization and those who would destroy it.’ (NSCT, 2003: 29) Within this view, those who would destroy it, thereby meaning
civilization, are all those who do not support the United States in its war on terrorism. This two-‐sided view, where one can either be the one or the other, “good” or “bad”, comes back several times. As his administration makes clear, ‘Freedom and fear are at war ‘ and the civilized stand for freedom and those opposed to it, namely terrorists, stand for fear (NSCT, 2003: 1). Because terrorist and civilization are each at the other side of the “good-‐bad” spectrum, it is important to convince people of this evil of terrorism. This is why this war is not only called the war on terror by the Bush administration, but is also called the ‘war of ideas’. The Bush administration believes that ‘ideas can transform the
peoples living harmoniously in a diverse society. ‘(NSCT, 2006: 7) Winning this war of ideas, in other words creating successful democracies, would mean a civilized
international society where there is no terrorism. ‘In place of an ideology that justifies murder, democracy offers a respect for human dignity that abhors the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians.’ (NSCT, 2006: 10) Within both strategies of the Bush administration, but particularly within their first one, everyone must oppose the deeds of terrorists. To make the cruelty of the deeds of terrorists clear his administration states that ‘We must use the full influence of the United States to delegitimize terrorism and make clear that all acts of terrorism will be viewed in the same light as slavery, piracy, or genocide: behavior that no respectable government can condone or support and all must oppose.’ (NSCT, 2003: 23-‐24) Several times the administration calls upon ‘the obligation’ of a country or nation to counter terrorism. When states will not meet this ‘obligation’ there will be taken ‘appropriate steps’, which are however never specifically described (NSCT, 2003: 17). The idea behind this is that the Bush administration believes that when states have sovereign rights, this also means they have sovereign responsibilities and one of those responsibilities is the responsibility to combat terrorism.
Furthermore, the Bush administration starts within its strategy of 2003 with ‘the United States and its allies’, but this soon turns into either ‘the United States and our friends and allies’ or ‘the United States and its friends and allies’. Because the word ‘friends’ is always used before the word ‘allies’, the idea of the ‘civilized’ against the ‘uncivilized’ becomes even stronger. What is remarkable is that the word ‘friends’ is however never used within the second strategy. A possible explanation is that in 2003 the Bush administration still needed to convince other nations to help the United States within their anti-‐terror policies and in 2006 many countries had already cooperated. The United States no longer needed to convince other countries of their “obligation”. This form changed significantly, namely from ‘Our friends and allies face many of the same threats. It is essential for America to work with its friends and allies in this campaign’ to ‘The United States and our partners continue to pursue a significantly degraded but still
dangerous al-‐Qaida network.’ (NSCT, 2003: 23; NSCT, 2006: 5) Also, within the strategies of the Bush administration, there is an emphasis on the importance of striking first. When this will not be done, this could have serious consequences for the lives of the civilized people. Otherwise there will be a world full of terror. Within his strategy he emphasises this importance to strake first by stating there is no other option. ‘For our terrorist enemies, violence is not only justified, it is
necessary and even glorified – judged the only means to achieve a world vision darkened by hate, fear, and oppression. They use suicide bombings, beheadings, and other atrocities against innocent people as a means to promote their creed.’ (NSCT, 2006: 5) Therefore, ‘the only path to safety is the path of action.’(NSCT, 2003: 11). Within the strategy of 2003 this ‘path of action’ is presented several times as the ‘right to self-‐defence’ (NSCT, 2003: 2). To make clear other options do not work and
countering terrorism should be done in a different way, the Bush administration refers to how radicalized their enemies are: ‘Traditional threats may not work because
terrorists show a wanton disregard for the lives of innocents and in some cases for their own lives.’ (NSCT, 2006: 14) This all stands in stark contrast to the strategy of the Obama administration. Within this strategy, the tone against terrorism is far more moderate than the one used under Bush. With moderate I mean that the enemies of the United States, terrorists, are in no way portrayed as bad as within the Bush administration and there is no distinction between the civilized and the uncivilized. Also, when a country does not want to
cooperate these are not seen as the enemies, which was the case within the Bush administration. Nations for instance, are not attacked on their responsibility to fight terrorism. While the strategy of Obama also puts a lot of emphasis on the importance of cooperation, there is not spoken of ‘appropriate actions’ against those who will not cooperate. Instead, when countries chose not to cooperate, the United States will take action against terrorist themselves, but certainly not against the countries. ‘When other countries are unwilling or unable to take action against terrorists within their borders who threaten the United States, they should be taken into U.S. custody and tried in U.S.
civilian courts or by military commission.’ (NSCT, 2011: 6) Further, the Obama administration believes the United States must act as an example for other nations. This administration believes that through cooperation, nations will learn the value of human rights and responsible governance (NSCT, 2011: 7). He shows that while ‘These partners may not share U.S. values or even our broader vision of regional and global security’, it is in the interests of the United States to ‘build habits and patterns of CT cooperation with such partners, working to push them in a direction that advances CT objectives while demonstrating through our example the value of upholding human rights and responsible governance.’ (NSCT, 2011: 7) This shows that the Obama administration is more willing to work with non-‐democracies then the Bush administration, which Nau also showed within his article (2010). However, although it might seem that the Obama administration places no judgment within its strategy, this is certainly not the case. Terrorist are, just like within the Bush administration, characterized as bad or evil, whereas the United States is not. For example, the Obama administration states that ‘Where terrorists offer injustice, disorder, and destruction the United States must stand for freedom, fairness, equality, dignity, hope, and opportunity.’ (NSCT, 2011: 5) But even so, the Obama administration is far more moderate. Within the Bush administration the vision of bad or evil did not only count for terrorists, but also for those who did not supported the United States, individuals or countries, which is not the case within the strategy of the Obama administration. Also, while the Bush strategy of 2003 always used the words ‘allies’ in combination with the word ‘friends’, the Obama administration never uses the word ‘friends’ within their strategy. This is usually referred to as ‘partners’. Further, within Obama’s strategy there is more room for relativism. He makes clear that ‘Those who in the past have attempted attacks in the United States have come from a wide range of backgrounds and origins, including U.S. citizens and individuals with varying degrees of overseas connections and affinities.’ (NSCT, 2011: 4) This is clearly different from the strategies of Bush, who only referred to others as being terrorists.
As you see, the tone used within Obama’s strategy is much more moderate than the one used under Bush. There is also spoken in terms of ‘us’ against ‘them’ within Obama’s strategy, but in a very different way. What is remarkable is that within Obama’s strategy, there is a short reference to need for universal rights within interrogation. ‘Our respect for universal rights must include living them through our own actions. Cruel and inhumane interrogation methods are not only inconsistent with U.S. values, they undermine the rule of law and are ineffective means of gaining the intelligence required to counter the threats we face.’ (NSCT, 2011: 5) Although not clearly expressed, this statement makes clear that the Obama administration does not agree on all fronts with the Bush administration and it looks as if the administration tries to renounce from the Bush administration with this statement.
Overall, the only similarity both administration have is that they distinct between “good” and “bad”. However, the Obama administration is also on this aspect far more moderate than the Bush administration. While form may not seem as an important aspect of their anti-‐terror policies, it is of significant importance to see if this is the only difference between their administrations. If so, this may tell us that scholars have given this category too much relevance when stating that the anti-‐terror policies of the administrations are very different.
Target
Within the above category this thesis has showed that the administrations are different regarding their form. When this would be the only difference between both
administrations within my analyses, this could mean that previous researches focussed too much on this when deciding if the administrations have different anti-‐terror policies. This is however not the case. Within the category target there are also significant
differences between the administrations. The strategy of 2003 of the Bush administration starts with the next quote: “No group or nation should mistake America’s intentions: We will not rest until terrorist
groups of global reach have been found, have been stopped, and have been defeated.” (NSCT, 2003: 1). This quote clarifies the target of the Bush administration immediately. Within this administration there is made no distinction between those groups or terrorist that were responsible for the attack of 9/11 and those who were not. Anti-‐ terror policies are meant for every terrorist group or individual, because the underlying idea behind this is that terrorist organizations and terrorists are believed to be close-‐ tied. ‘In this environment, terrorists work together in funding, sharing intelligence, training, logistics, planning, and executing attacks. Terrorist groups with objectives in one country or region can draw strength and support from groups in other countries or regions.’ (NSCT, 2003: 8) But terrorists also support each other in less direct ways, because they promote the same ideological agenda and reinforce ‘each other’s efforts to cultivate a favorable international image for their “cause.”’ (NSCT, 2003: 9) This view expands not only to individuals who support terrorists, but also to states that provide so called ‘safe havens’ or do not oppose terrorists. To make this clearer, the Bush administration states that their anti-‐terror policies are not only meant for all terrorists of global reach, but also for ‘those who support and harbor terrorists.’ (NSCT, 2006: 15). This includes governments which the United States holds accountable for “allying terror” (NSCT, 2006: 15). Within the strategy of Bush of 2003 these are Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Sudan and within 2006 these are ‘Iran, Syria, Sudan, North Korea, and Cuba.’ (NSCT, 2006: 15) To counter these terrorists nations, sanctions will be hold against these countries and the United States will support their international isolation, making them part of the anti-‐terror policies of the Bush administration (NSCT, 2006: 15).
The Obama administration on the other hand does not aim its anti-‐terror policies at all terrorists globally, so it says, but specifically at Al-‐Qaeda and its affiliates and adherents. ‘The United States deliberately uses the word “war” to describe our relentless campaign against al-‐Qa‘ida.’ (NSCT, 2011: 2) However, as the strategy point out, adherence to Al-‐Qaeda does not require allegiance to the organization. Those who sympathize with the organization or actively support it can also pose an ongoing threat
(NSCT, 2011: 4). Adherence may not even mean that there can be spoken of formal contact with the organization according to this strategy, which makes clear that this strategy is not specifically targeting against Al-‐Qaeda solely. While the administration uses Al-‐Qaeda as a starting target for their strategy, it certainly is not the only
organization they target. The terrorist organization al-‐Shabaab within Somalia is
mentioned, because it is influenced by elements of Al-‐Qaeda, but there is also spoken of other terrorist groups, such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARQ), Hezbollah and HAMAS (NSCT, 2011: 15; NSCT, 2011: 18). When referred to the Al-‐ Shabaab organization, there was added that there was a link to the network of Al-‐ Qaeda, which makes them an affiliate organization. However, when referred to the other organization, there was never mentioned such a link within the strategy. Still, the main targets of the Obama administrations are settled within the Middle East and Sahel Africa, because all the countries they mention within their administration which they will assist or otherwise intervene are settled within this region. A particular target which has gotten a lot of attention in both administrations are countries that have WMD, because both administrations fear that terrorists could in some way gain access to them. This target is one that both administrations have in common and are also dealing with within their strategies. However, again, when the Bush administration refers to all countries which he believed sponsor terrorism or have WMD, the Obama administration points out solely those within the Middle East. Where within the Bush administration these countries were Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Sudan, the Obama administration only refers to Iran and Syria as active state sponsors of terrorism (NSCT, 2011: 18). In short, we can say that the administrations have different targets within their strategies. While the Bush administrations also intervened within the Middle East, such as within Iraq and Afghanistan, there was also spoken of interventions within the Balkans and assistance within the Philippines (NSCT, 2003: 20) The Obama
administration on the other hand did refer once to the FARQ, a terrorist organization within Colombia, but never mentions assistance programs or interventions in other
area’s than the Middle East and Sahel Africa. This shows us that the administrations not only differ within form, but also within which terrorists and countries they make part of their anti-‐terror policies. Previous researches never mentioned this within their debate and focussed namely on the countries both strategy had in common, where I would say this is a big difference between the administrations regarding their target.
Plan of action
Within this last category, I will analyse the plan of action of both administration. However, because this category is much broader than the above categories, I will present them in different paragraphs. One of these paragraphs will also deal with what the administrations regard as the underlying conditions of terrorism. Although this is not necessarily part of their plan of action, it says something about why they want to take certain actions and therefore also about whether their idea of terrorism is similar or different. Because this thesis will not elaborate too much on this aspect, I have chosen to include it within the plan of action.
Improving U.S. Intelligence and domestic measures
Although both administrations address the need for intervention within other countries, which includes military intervention, the Bush administration specifically mentions that a response such as before 9/11 will not be sufficient to counter terrorism. Therefore, a different approach will be necessary, one in which the United States uses all
instruments, diplomatic, economic, law enforcement, financial, information, intelligence and military (NSCT, 2003: 1). ‘By striking constantly and ensuring that terrorists have no place to hide, we will compress their scope and reduce the capability of these
organizations.’ (NSCT, 2003: 2) Both administrations focus on attacking the sanctuaries of terrorists, namely their leadership, command, control, communications and finances, thereby rooting out the basic elements necessary for a terrorist organization to exist. An
