Name : Raditya Sisuka Hakim

IRE Class 6
Student ID : 016202000029
Introduction to International Relations
War On Terrorism Assignment

War On Terrorism
It should be noted, with the existence of US foreign policy during Barack Obama's
leadership. The occurrence of the largest international terrorist attack was the September 11,
2001 attack in the United States, which appeared to be widespread irrationality in response to
the problem of international terrorism, proven as acts of terrorism carried out by an
organization called Al-Qaeda led by Osama Bin Laden and under the Taliban regime. in
Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda is a global extremist Islamic terrorism network with membership
originating from various Islamic countries and spread across almost all Islamic countries,
born from the war in Afghanistan. The case is like in the war situation in Afghanistan. The
United States military arrested David Hicks, who was an Australian national, on the charge
that David Hicks was a member of the Taliban's armed forces trained by Al-Qaeda and David
Hicks' friend Mahmoud Habib, arrested in Pakistan on charges that Mahmoud Habib was a
member of terrorism. Although Mahmoud Habib is not a participant in the conflict,
Mahmoud Habib is subject to international criminal law which is protected by the
International Convention For Installments and Political Rights (ICCPR). Therefore, the
United States continues to focus on terrorism, which is considered the greatest threat to the
country's security and to international security in general. The success of the United States in
the war on terrorism is not only responding to the problem of international terrorism by an
organization called Al-Qaeda caused by its members. However, it also creates unipolar
material power and unipolar ideas that are the background for the United States in creating
hegemonic power because it is to maintain its label as a symbol of world domination and
super power that is unmatched and unbeatable.
 With many speculations that have emerged, finally the United States took a strategic
policy quickly to fight the war against terrorism, especially the Al-Qaeda group immediately.
This incident was a response to a terrorist threat that is considered globalized in the world
which directly threatens the existence of the United States as a sovereign state. The incident
was reported by Bush and Barack Obama, which basically has a specific classification of
whoever becomes the truth in terms of reality, values, and beliefs aimed at the public in
understanding and conveying important power. In dealing with the issue of terrorism, there
are different attitudes between George W. Bush and Barack Obama in interpreting and
implementing the war on terrorism policy. The most visible difference in attitude is the
diplomatic formation issued by Bush and Barack Obama. In fighting the terrorism movement
of the Al-Qaeda group, President Bush uses a form of hard power diplomacy that can be
applied in the form of sanctions, threats, military action, both invasion and intervention.
However, there are several forms of Bush's foreign policy, namely counter terrorism,
including the Bush Doctrine and pre-empetive strike strategies to deal with potential threats
to a country's national security. Meanwhile, President Barack Obama made multilateral smart
power efforts to complement the two dimensions of a country's hard power, namely the
military (carrots) and economic pressure (sticks) in order to get the desired results..
On November 13, 2001, United States President George W. Bush signed a Military
Order or Presidential Decree which stated that the United States has the right to detain, treat
and try certain foreigners who are involved in acts of terrorism. This decree was issued after
the attack on the United States military incident by crashing the plane into the World Trade
Center (WTC) Building and the Pentagon Building, on September 11, 2001 which killed
approximately 3000 people became the main reason for the United States to issue a decree on
war on terrorism which is the worst incident for the United States in preventing military
attacks so that Al-Qaeda is not able to win a "real war" but "immateral war", namely by
delegitimizing the symbol of US domination as a superpower. In addition, the detention of
foreign nationals to try them for violations of the laws of war and other laws by United States
military courts.
 The tragedy is a nightmare for the United States, which is known as a superpower. It
turned out that the incident was successfully carried out by a group of terrorists who hijacked
a commercial aircraft belonging to the United States itself and caused enormous losses to the
United States. This was a major highlight in the George W. Bush administration. As a
response, the United States responded to the tragedy in a presidential address made by
George W. Bush to the congress on September 20, 2001, entitled Address to The Nation Joint
Session of 107th Congress at the United State Capitol building, Washington, DC. Broadcast
through various television broadcasts. This speech was the official position of the United
States in response to the events of September 11, 2001.
The political policy contains the following :
1. The enthusiasm shown by the George W. Bush administration to bring perpetrators of
acts of terrorism to justice can be immediately tried in the name of justice.
2. George W. Bush declares openly that the Al-Qaeda group is a terrorist who has
shaken the United States as the spearhead of world peace. The United States has
described the Al-Qaeda group as aiming to kill Christians, Jews and American
citizens, as well as indiscriminately from both the military and the civilian population.
The Al-Qaeda group has a very wide network spread across more than 60 countries,
including Thaliban, Egyptian Islami Jihad, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, and so
on. Its members are taken to training camps in Afghanistan to be recruited, trained,
and sent back to their respective countries to spread fear and destruction.
3. George W. Bush built the dividing wall. That Islam is not the enemy of the United
States, but the enemy of the United States is the Al-Qaedq group and other groups
associated with the United States.
4. The United States mobilizes all of its strength, whether diplomatic, intelligence
network, legal force, funding, and armed forces.
5. The United States government provides two options for other countries. Follow the
United States or follow the terrorism to be fought.
 References
Military Order, November 13, 2001, Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-
Citizens in the War Against Terrorism, §1(a), 66 Fed. Reg.57,833 (Nov. 16, 2001).
United States v. Rahman,189 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1999), cert. denied 528 U.S.1094 (2000).
Daryl Williams MP report to ICJ, then Attorney-General for Australia, 17 January 2002,
dapat diakses di: www. International Commission for Jurists.Org.
Foucault, Michel. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Penguin
Books
Foucault, Michel .(1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews & Other Writings 1972-
1977. New York: Pantheon Books
Foucault, Michel.(1981). ‘The Order of Discourse’, dalam R. Young(ed.), “Untying the text:
A Post Structuralist Reader”. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd
Abdul Muthallib, Husain Muhammad Mahmud. 2010. al Tanshir, Haqiqatuhu wa Thuruq
Muwaajatih. Kairo: Pustaka al Iman.
Azra, Azyumardi, Hudson, Wayne. 2008. Islam Beyond Conflict: Indonesian Islam and
Western Political Teory. England: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Blum, William. 2006. Rogue State: a Guide‟s ti The World Only Super Power. London.
United Kingdom: Zed Books Ltd.
Kaarbo, Juliet; Lamtis, Jeffrey S.; Beasley, Ryan K.;. (2013). Foreign Policy in Comparative
Perspective: Domestic and International Influences on State Behavior. California,
USA: CQ Press.
Kimberly Amandeo. (2016). War on Terror Facts, Costs and Timeline. Retrieved from
https;//www.thebalance.com/war-on-terror-facts-costs-timeline-
330600:https;//www.thebalance.com/war-on-terror-facts-costs-timeline-330600
Kissinger, H. A. (1971). Domestic Structure and Foreign Policy. In W. F. Henreider,
Comparative Foreign Policy, Theoretical Essays (p. 133). New York: David McKay.