Unveiling the Ineffectiveness: The Global War on Terror's Counterproductive Counterterrorism Policies

This paper will argue that the counter terrorism policies enacted during the Global War on Terror have been largely unsuccessful. This will be addressed in three ways followed by possible alternatives and solutions: the first will be discussing the effectiveness of decapitation strikes against terrorist leaderships and its effect on the actions of those groups namely the increasing likelihood of targeting civilians, second will discuss the negative effects of the War on Terror on civil liberties and how this leads to further radicalization and sympathy for extremist groups, lastly I will discuss the United State’s specific counterterrorist policies specifically those enacted in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks and how these policies are ineffective and have likewise severely harmed American international prestige and renown due to actions taken in the United States’ Global War on Terror. 

Before we can delve into counterterrorism we must first define what terrorism is. Terrorism as defined by the United States’ Department of State is a “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” (Rogers, 2018) As such counterterrorism is the attempt to prevent these actions from being carried out or alternatively, the attempt to minimize damage after such an action has occurred. 

Decapitation Strikes

First, we will discuss the effectiveness of decapitation strikes which are typically carried out through the deployment of drones or missile strikes in order to eliminate high ranking leaders of terrorist organizations (Abrahms / Potter, 2015). This is typically a core component of counterterrorism policies and as such has been carried out by the United States on numerous occasions. The idea is that these strikes will prevent a terrorist group from being organized and therefore posing less of a threat to American interests as well as potentially leading to its destabilization as many terrorist groups tend to be banded together by charismatic leadership such as Al-Qaeda under Osama Bin Laden. However, this thinking is flawed as it has been discovered that typically organized terrorist groups under a centralized leadership system will generally be more likely to attack military targets instead of civilian ones as such with the loss of this leadership, the planning and execution of these terrorist attacks end up being delegated to regular ‘on the ground’ troops who in turn operate with more autonomy. These actors tend to not have the resources and logistical planning skills that are more typically reserved by the terrorist leadership and therefore begin to pivot to more easier targets which are in turn civilians. Additionally, attacks on civilian targets tend to provoke a more emotional and rash response from authorities due to public outcry and pressure after such an incident. This can be seen by the United States’ response to the 9/11 attacks and their invasion of both Iraq and Afghanistan (Anschuetz, 2012) and likewise with Israel in response to the October 7th massacre conducted by Hamas (Times of Israel Team, 2023). This is ideal to the terrorists as such a response can easily be reconstructed as being an ‘overreaction’ and therefore can be used as a means to radicalize or generate sympathy amongst the public due to the sheer collateral damage that results from such counterterrorist responses. This overreaction tends to be because states tend to favour direct military action after such an event as it has the added bonus of providing a ‘quick and direct’ end to terrorist activities and in turn satiates the domestic public’s desire for revenge as such ample military action was conducted against terrorists by both the United States in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and by Israel in the aftermath of the October 7th massacre conducted by Hamas. However, while these actions are immensely popular within these countries’ domestic audiences (Abrahms / Potter, 2015), they tend to be immensely unpopular internationally and thereby in turn can be used as a propaganda tool by these terrorist organizations in order to recruit more moderate people who are outraged by the collateral damage that these military strikes regularly cause.

This international unpopularity can be shown through the fact that around the period of September and December, Israel’s net favourability rating heavily decreased. Dropping globally by an average of 18.5 percentage points (Gordon, 2024). Additionally, this has ramifications for the United States, which is Israel’s primary backer on the international stage, as its favourability rating specifically in the Middle Eastern region has declined. This can be shown by Egypt, where the United States went from having a positive favorability rating of 41.1 to a negative favorability rating of -14.9 during the same period. Likewise with Saudi Arabia which went from a positive rating of 12.2 to a negative rating of -10.5.  This can also be seen in the United States a year after the 9/11 attacks in 2002. Where a favourability opinion poll conducted in 18 countries had a median positive favourability rating of 64 percentage points contrasted to a negative favourability rating of 27 percentage points (Briggs, 2013). Compared to opinions in 2007 in which both the Iraq War and American intervention in Afghanistan had been going on for several years had a much more negative view of the United States. This can be seen by a decrease of 13 percentage points in terms of net favourability with an additional increase of 15 percentage points in terms of net unfavourability. As such this shows that through these targeting of civilian targets and the authorities response to such an incident leads to a honeymoon period of sympathy for the country that had been attacked before declining severely due to the authorities actions which have been catapulted by internal pressures for them to respond. This means that the strategy of decapitating terrorist leadership only leads to more instability due to the increased chance of civilian targeting while in addition resulting in international unfavourability and isolation due to the actions that authorities are pressured into taking after the incident of these civilian attacks. Which in turn leads to more challenges for these countries to pressure other global interests. In conclusion, the strategy of decapitating terrorist leadership, a common component of counterterrorism policies, may not be as effective as initially perceived. While it aims to destabilize terrorist organizations and protect national interests, it inadvertently leads to an increase in attacks on civilian targets due to the decentralization of planning and execution. The subsequent public outcry and pressure often provoke a strong military response from the affected nations, which, while satisfying domestic calls for action, can be perceived internationally as an overreaction. This can lead to a decline in international favourability, as evidenced by the experiences of the United States and Israel. Furthermore, these actions can be exploited by terrorist organizations as propaganda tools to recruit more members. Therefore, while decapitation strikes may provide a quick solution, they potentially lead to more instability, increased civilian targeting, international isolation, and challenges in exerting global influence. 

Black Sites & Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

Second, we will discuss the increasing utilization of black sites and ‘enhanced interrogations’ techniques conducted by counterterrorist and intelligence agencies namely the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States as well as their impacts on civil liberties. These methods have become a trademark of the American led Global War on Terror’s playbook against global terrorism. These tactics pose numerous problems as with any method of torture such as waterboarding which is frequently a part of the repertoire of enhance interrogation techniques is the increased possibility of false or inaccurate confessions due to the incentive to get the torture to end (O’Mara, 2018). Among other techniques is the deliberate use of sleep deprivation on detainees as well as severely poor cell conditions including pitch black cells and constant loud music (Smith, 2021). As such it is simply not an effective method of counterterrorism even excluding its moral and human rights violations. It should also be noted that the utilization of these techniques is extremely arbitrary as despite the Central Intelligence Agency claiming that their techniques were backed by scientific evidence, its application at these sites seemed to be more of trial and error amongst just randomly coming up with new ways to intimidate inmates. Additionally, the reason as to why black sites are utilized is in order to purposely circumvent the due process as well as the constitutional and human rights entitled to detainees which many counterterrorist advocates argue is necessary in the ever encompassing desire for national security (Black / Clark, 2016). Such a vagrant violation of the human rights and rule of law that the United States claims it upholds internationally provides ample propaganda fuel for terrorist organizations as well as turning off most of the public from what they can see as blatant hypocrisy and authoritarian excess (Smith, 2021). Additionally, it damages the United States’ international reputation and calls into question its other goals that are in the name of democracy or human rights as other nations can easily blame it as hypocrisy or use the United States’ usage of these techniques as justification as to why they can also disregard human rights (Human Rights Watch Team, 2014) (United Nations Human Rights Team, 2022). In conclusion, the use of black sites and ‘enhanced interrogation’ techniques by counterterrorism and intelligence agencies, particularly the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States, raises significant concerns about civil liberties and human rights. Despite their intended purpose in the Global War on Terror, these methods often lead to false or inaccurate confessions and are not an effective counterterrorism strategy. The arbitrary application of these techniques, despite claims of scientific backing, further undermines their legitimacy. The deliberate circumvention of due process and constitutional rights in the name of national security not only fuels terrorist propaganda but also alienates the public and damages the international reputation of the United States. The perceived hypocrisy of the United States’ stance on democracy and human rights can be exploited by other nations to justify their own disregard for human rights. 

American Counter Terrorism Response

Third, we will discuss how the United States’ counterterrorist response to the September 11th attacks through the examination of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 along with their ramifications for domestic and international politics. The major changes conducted by the American government were the passage of two pieces of legislation and the further expansion of military, law enforcement, and intelligence powers through the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Dahl, 2021) and the USA PATRIOT Act (Anschuetz, 2012) in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks. Starting with the Homeland Security Act of 2002, its most major contribution was the creation of a new governmental department, not seen since the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947 (Dahl, 2021). As such the Department of Homeland Security was established. This new department was granted authority over certain organizations and services that were previously held by other governmental departments such as being granted control over the Customs Service, Coast Guard, and U.S. Secret Service. The general idea behind its foundation was to reinforce and safeguard America’s borders and prevent its infiltration by terrorist or hostile actors. The USA PATRIOT Act on the other hand was a much more different document, instead focusing on granting the American government with the addition of law enforcement and intelligence agencies overarching powers in the fight against terrorism (Anschuetz, 2012). The issues with these pieces of legislation is the kind of counter terrorist mindset that they promote which is that violations of human and constitutional rights are justified in the name of national security regardless of the cost. For example, some of most controversial aspects of the Patriot Act are as follows: 

Section 215 - Access to Records: This section allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation to order any person or entity to turn over “any tangible things,” so long as the Federal Bureau of Investigation “specifies” that the order is “for an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.” 

It should be noted that the most obvious flaw is the ambiguity such as what exactly are “any tangible things?” This ambiguity provides the government an easy ability to violate constitutional and human rights which in turn helps bolster anti-government sentiment by making it easier for innocent people to get caught up in counter terrorist activities while also making it easier for terrorists to recruit people due to prevailing anti-government sentiments (Anschuetz, 2012).   

Section 206 - Roving Wiretaps: This provision allows for roving wiretaps, which can track any means of communication that a suspect might use.

Such a blatant violation of privacy can only stir up more anti-government sentiments. Additionally, it raises the uncomfortable possibility of the government utilizing such powers to influence other aspects of life such as possible politically motivated monitoring or against various protest groups that are against government interests. 

Section 213 - Delayed Notice Search Warrants: Also known as “sneak and peek” warrants, this provision allows authorities to search a home or business without immediately notifying the target of the investigation. 

It should be noted that such a provision is a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment of the American constitution that provides protection against unreasonable searches (Anschuetz, 2012). Additionally, all this will do is stir up agitation as no one appreciates getting searched, even more so without due process. Thereby providing more fuel for terrorist propaganda machines as well as increasing the citizenry’s desire for non-compliance. 

National Security Letters: The Act expanded the use of National Security Letters which are administrative subpoenas used by the government to compel entities like telecommunications companies, financial institutions, and internet service providers to hand over customer information. 

Like before, this provision raises questions surrounding privacy and due process as National Security Letters can be issued without judicial oversight (Anschuetz, 2012). Such a piece of legislation provides ample fuel for hypocrisy such as with China where the United States frequently makes criticisms of Chinese companies having to hand information on their customers over to the Chinese authorities despite the fact that the American government has granted itself the same authority (Perez, 2021). It therefore undermines American moral superiority which harms and calls into question its mission of promoting democracy and human rights abroad. 

Material Support to Terrorist Organizations: The Act prohibits providing “material support” to groups designated as foreign terrorist organizations (Congressional Research Service Team, 2023). 

Once again the issue is with ambiguity, what exactly constitutes “material support?” It should also be noted in the Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the American Supreme Court stated that the providing of service, training, and “expert advice or assistance” to groups designated as foreign terrorist organizations also falls under the umbrella of material support (Mineshima-Lowe, 2024). Therefore, it makes it incredibly easy for the American government to implicate a corporation or company into providing material support to terrorist groups either deliberately or accidentally, therefore increasing government influence over the private sector and individual lives. In conclusion, the United States’ response to the September 11th attacks, while aimed at enhancing national security, has instead clashed with both civil liberties and constitutional rights. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 and the USA PATRIOT Act have both expanded the powers of law enforcement and intelligence agencies, at the expense of individual liberty and the judicial process. The ambiguity in the language of these acts, such as the definitions of “any tangible things” and “material support,” has led to potential misuse and overreach. Due to the potential of abuse, these measures have helped fuel anti-government sentiments and in addition undermined American international standing.

Alternatives & Solutions

This essay therefore argues that an effective first step would be to discontinue the use of counter terrorist policies that impact domestic and international civil liberties and human rights such as those contained within the Patriot Act and other Central Intelligence Agency guidelines as such policies only make it easier for terrorists to recruit new supporters while simultaneously damaging American renown abroad (Brands / O’Hanlon, 2021). Additionally, at its core terrorism is guided by rationalism in which this paper means that these acts of aggression are viewed by these actors as a means to attain a political or ideological goal (Abrahms / Potter, 2015). Therefore, this paper advocates that an alternative is negotiation, while this will not work for all groups especially those with goals that advocate for the complete overthrow of the political order or conquest such as those espoused by the self proclaimed Islamic Caliphate or Al-Qaeda however they can be successful. This can be seen with groups such as the Irish Republican Army which concluded in the Good Friday Agreement which resulted in the ceasing of hostilities between them and the British government (Pillar, 2018). The reason as to why this can work as it eliminates the need for these groups to have to utilize violence in order to attain their political or ideological goals by having them participate in an established framework or democratic guidelines. Thereby disregarding violence as being the only means to achieve their goals. In conclusion, this essay suggests that a fundamental first step towards effective counter terrorism is the cessation of policies infringing on civil liberties and human rights, such as those permitted by the Patriot Act. These policies inadvertently aid terrorist recruitment while simultaneously tarnishing America’s global reputation. Terrorism is also fundamentally rational, meaning that violence is employed as a means to achieve a political or ideological goal. Thus, negotiation is a viable alternative, albeit depending on the goals of the group. This can be seen with the Good Friday Agreement which ended hostilities with the Irish Republican Army. This demonstrates the potential for peaceful resolution through political engagement within democratic frameworks, thereby negating the necessity for violence. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, this essay has stated as to why the utilization of decapitation strikes is only a viable short term solution which typically ends up exacerbating the problem that such techniques were originally trying to solve. Additionally, the use of torture at black sites also while being ineffective due to the unreliability of forced confessions also has the consequence of providing propaganda fuel to terrorists allowing them to garner sympathy from both domestic and international audiences. Finally, this essay has discussed some of the counter terrorist policies enacted in the United States following the September 11th attacks and has concluded that such techniques especially those found within the Patriot Act are ineffective and only serve to stir up anti-government sentiment due to their sheer invasiveness while also causing feelings of hypocrisy to stir up internationally. 

Bibliography & Further Readings: 

Abrahms, M. and Potter, P.B.K. (2015) Explaining Terrorism: Leadership Deficits and Militant Group Tactics, Hein Online. Available at: https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/intorgz69&id=330&men_tab=srchresults (Accessed: 07 May 2024). 

Anschuetz, A. (2012) American security: Triumphs and downfalls of the Patriot Act, American Security: Triumphs And Downfalls Of The Patriot Act | Department of English. Available at: https://english.umd.edu/research-innovation/journals/interpolations/spring-2012/american-security-triumphs-and-downfalls (Accessed: 07 May 2024). 

Brands, H. and O’Hanlon, M. (2021) ‘The War on Terror has not yet failed: A net assessment after 20 years’, Survival, 63(4), pp. 33–54. doi:10.1080/00396338.2021.1956194. 

Briggs, B. (2013) U.S. soars in world popularity charts post Iraq - but will it last?, NBCNews.com. Available at: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-soars-world-popularity-charts-post-iraq-will-it-flna6C10878886 (Accessed: 07 May 2024). 

Congressional Research Service Team (2023) Terrorist Material Support: An overview of 18 U.S.C. § 2339A and § 2339b, Congressional Research Service. Available at: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/R41333.pdf (Accessed: 07 May 2024). 

Dahl, E.J. (2021) Assessing the Effectiveness of the Department of Homeland Security, 20 Years After 9/11, Watson Institute: International & Public Affairs: Brown University. Available at: https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2021/Assessing%20DHS_Dahl_Costs%20of%20War.pdf (Accessed: 07 May 2024). 

Gordon, A. (2024) New polling shows how much global support Israel has lost, Time. Available at: https://time.com/6559293/morning-consult-israel-global-opinion/ (Accessed: 07 May 2024). 

Human Rights Watch Team (2014) USA and torture: A history of hypocrisy, Human Rights Watch. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/12/09/usa-and-torture-history-hypocrisy (Accessed: 07 May 2024). 

Mineshima-Lowe, D. (2024) USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (2001), The Free Speech Center. Available at: https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/usa-patriot-act-of-2001/ (Accessed: 07 May 2024). 

O’Mara, S. (2018) ‘The captive brain: Torture and the Neuroscience of Humane Interrogation’, QJM: An International Journal of Medicine, 111(2), pp. 73–78. doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcx252. 

Perez, C. (2021) Why China’s new Data Security Law is a warning for the future of Data Governance, Foreign Policy. Available at: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/28/china-data-governance-security-law-privacy/#cookie_message_anchor (Accessed: 07 May 2024). 

Pillar, P.R., Williams, P.D. and McDonald, M. (2018) ‘Chapter 27: Counterterrorism’, in security studies: an introduction. 3rd edn. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 408–421. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/city/reader.action?docID=5295090&ppg=427 (Accessed: 2024). 

Rogers, P., Williams, P.D. and McDonald, M. (2018) ‘Chapter 26: Terrorism’, in security studies: an introduction. 3rd edn. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 395–407. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/city/reader.action?docID=5295090&ppg=427 (Accessed: 2024). 

Smith, D. (2021) ‘it’s soul-crushing’: The shocking story of guantánamo bay’s ‘forever prisoner’, The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/dec/07/the-forever-prisoner-hbo-alex-gibney-guantanamo-bay (Accessed: 07 May 2024). 

Times of Israel Team (2023) Many Israelis accuse government’s of inept, chaotic response to October 7 massacre | The Times of Israel, The Times of Israel. Available at: https://www.timesofisrael.com/many-israelis-accuse-governments-of-inept-chaotic-response-to-october-7-massacre/ (Accessed: 07 May 2024). 

United Nations Human Rights Team (2022) Guantanamo Bay: “Ugly chapter of unrelenting human rights violations” – UN experts | OHCHR, United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/01/guantanamo-bay-ugly-chapter-unrelenting-human-rights-violations-un-experts (Accessed: 07 May 2024).