Due to the incident that happened on September 11, 2001 in America, the condition of fighting terror has become a worldwide concern. Being an international concern, the United Nations and all its allied agencies have specifically imposed particular amount of budget for the said campaign. Aiming to create a more peaceful and secured society, this campaign brings together all nations in creating a source of fighting program dedicated to assuming a more secured system of relationship between nations. The focus of the campaign however is targeting the elimination of al-Qaeda.
In support to this particular campaign, the United States specifically considered offering military assistance to countries who are presumably under the threat of particular security issues. The assumptive control on the matter began by the late US President George W. Bush, it was further pursued by President Barack Obama which he later on called as the United States Global War on Terrorism Service resulting to the promotion of the Overseas Contingency Operation.
This military action provides a great indication on how the world is trying to face the most indicative sources of anomalies on the promotion of peace and security. Not only is the American government able to manifest a sense of control on the manipulation of resources towards the direction of pursuing peace keeping efforts, the country’s administration is also able to create programs that would later on make distinctive impact on how people would be able to feel safe and secure in their own countries again.
In 2002, NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] (alliances) have considered the need to contain countries that are expected to have anomalous connection with the members of Al Qaeda. Understandably, it could be understood that through these years, such campaign has provided a great impact on how more defined programs are produced to make sure that the remaining al Qaeda members are contained accordingly even after the instance by which Osama Bin Laden has been killed. The linkages to the biggest terrorist groups are still being sought after and are hoped to be controlled accordingly.
Overall, budget dedicated to this particular campaigns are noted to have been strongly controlled by the United Nations and the United States altogether. Other supporting financial assets are given by other alliances from major European regions. All these assets are considered essential to the continuous promotion of peace and security. Notably, it could be understood that all these efforts and budget-defined operations are all assumed with a detectable cost that is funded by a huge amount of money. The desire to keep peace and security to remain evident in the major parts of the world specifically costs so much and thus should be dealt with accordingly in the desire of continuing the efforts dedicated to keeping such situation in the community contained accordingly. Most likely, the status of the world’s war against terror today could be considered balanced nevertheless, because of the specific issues that are remaining to have an impact on the matter, such as social issues and community chaos, both the United Nations and the United States continue to establish a good reputation. This reputation is assumed to make it easier for countries to accept what both UN and US have to offer in a sense of protecting the values and assets of other nations relating the continuous promotion of peace and security. Relatively, it is through the continuance of this campaign that nations today are focused towards using their assets to support such hope of improving peace and security in the international scene.
Richissin, Todd (2 September 2004). “”War on terror” difficult to define”. The Balitmore Sun.
Lustick, Ian S. (2006). Trapped in the War on Terror. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Jackson, Richard. Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics and Counter-Terrorism. Manchester & New York: Manchester University Press, 2005.
Eisenhower Study Group (2011). “Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Anti-Terrorism Operations”. Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University.