A New Enemy, A New War: The Unconventional Fight Against Terrorism and its Impact on International Diplomacy

Originally written in November 2013 for a course at American Military University.

Abstract

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, fundamentally shifted the nature of global conflict from traditional state-on-state warfare to an unconventional war fought against a non-state ideological enemy. This article argues that the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), despite its controversial elements, has been a significant catalyst for increased international diplomacy and cooperation. The attacks immediately unified global powers, as demonstrated by the strong condemnation and commitment to action from the UN Security Council (Resolution 1368). In the aftermath, the nature of the threat forced individual citizens to rely on their governments, fostering a nascent sense of nationalism and demand for legitimate, stable governments—particularly within the Middle East, influencing regime change efforts in Iraq and the ongoing transition in Afghanistan. The GWOT led to the formation of a broad international coalition that transcended historical divisions, focusing on a common threat to basic human rights and modern civilization. While challenges remain, including the perception of US hegemonic overreach and hypocrisy in its foreign policy, the international effort has fostered democratic institution-building in war-torn states and opened dialogue even among previously strained diplomatic partners (e.g., US-Pakistan relations). Ultimately, this unconventional conflict has generated undeniable, positive effects on global cooperation and the collaborative effort to stabilize volatile regions. Since the beginning of time men have gone to war.  At first, small tribes defended their piece of land or attempted to gain a “better” piece.  Then, tribes grew into nations and nations developed into countries. War was a way to settle differences, enlarge a nation’s territory, or just an act to show the power of a leader. No matter the reason, it was generally nation against nation or a power struggle within a nation. 11 September 2001 changed that. When two jet liners hurled into the World Trade Centers in New York City, the enemy changed. The fight was no longer directed at a nation, but at an ideal. It was a new kind of war. Since the September Terrorist Attacks, the United States and her allies have fought an unconventional war. Because the war is so unconventional, it is not directed at a single state causing the states to work hand-in-hand and thus helping international diplomacy. This war has forced citizens to support their individual states, assisted in the creation of an international coalition force, and increased international efforts to create stabile governments within the Middle East. 

Introduction

At the outbreak of war, every individual looks to someone for answers. With the United States, the September Terrorist Attack forced them to look at the president, their leader. We were angry at the audacity of Al Qaida to bring their fight to our front door, we were united in our pain, and we found strength in our leader. The United States were not the only ones confused and looking for answers. The day following the attack, the United Nations Security Council held a meeting. Nations expressed their condolences and support to a world power that they saw injured. They questioned whether it was possible that these attacks were just the beginning.

The United Kingdom responded stating, “Yesterday’s attack was a global issue, an attack on modern civilization and an affront to the human spirit.” [1] Mauritius said that “targeting the United States was also aimed at democracy and the free world.” [2] The Islamic response was harder to pin. Reports flooded the news outlets of celebrating in Palestine while statements condemning the actions as un-Islamic came from Fatah, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Hamas, and numerous other Muslim and Palestinian organizations. The spectrum of the response was great and as the war continued the spectrum began to polarize. Each person pulled to the side those they trusted, whether that be their state government or their extremist leader.

This impacted the Middle East most of all. A sudden sense of nationalistic ideals began to form. The desires for a legitimate government lead to the fall of the Saddam regime in Iraq and the struggles against the Taliban in Afghanistan. The people of the Middle East were looking for a government to answer questions and to provide for the people. They began to trust, very hesitantly, their government and thus lines of diplomatic discussion were opened. Even in countries where diplomatic ties were strained, there was the dropping of past issues and the opening of dialogue. “Since the September 11 attacks, the United States has reversed course in South and Southwest Asia. Adopting a more even-handed approach in its dealings with India and Pakistan, the Bush administration is more than willing to work with the Musharraf regime in return for Pakistani support of U.S. military and diplomatic objectives in Southwest Asia. For their part, General Musharraf and his military colleagues have eagerly supported U.S. goals in Afghanistan in the interest of regime survival and to reap the rewards of cooperation with the United States and its allies.” [3]

International Alliances

International alliances during a time of war are nothing new. The World Wars are examples of such alliances; however, the Global War on Terrorism was an international call to arms to combat an international threat against basic human rights. “The general goal of the war on terrorism can be interrupted as punishment, which then can be divided into four sub-goals: eliminating terrorism by removing the ability of those responsible to launch any further attacks; general deterrence aimed at other potential terrorists; taking revenge on the individuals responsible; and showing that terrorism will not be tolerated to vindicate the rule of society.”[4] 

In an effort to reach these goals, the United Nations Security Council met on 12 September 2001. At this meeting, they adopted Resolution 1368 (2001). “Council members departed from tradition and stood to unanimously adopt Resolution 1368 (2001), by which they expressed the Council’s readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the attacks of 11 September and to combat all forms of terrorism.”[5] This was the first step in the creation of an international coalition force to combat an ambiguous threat that has no state allegiance. President George W. Bush set out to make this happen.

After the 11 September Terrorist Attacks, “President George W. Bush identified three countries-Iraq, Iran, and North Korea-as the ‘Axis of Evil,’ and the stage was set for further conflict with Iraq. Throughout late 2002 and early 2003 the Bush administration made its case against Iraq and sought to build a U.N.-sanctioned coalition to use military force against a country that the U.S. government regarded as being ruled by a rogue regime.”[6] Even though at the start, President Bush invaded Iraq on his own and begun Operation Iraqi Freedom; the Coalition eventually offered support. Today there are 60 countries supporting the efforts in Afghanistan. 

The Coalition

Within the 60 countries, the goal is to eliminate the hold that the Taliban has on the country of Afghanistan and replace them with a legitimate democratic government. As the Coalition attempts to eliminate the threat, they have also begun to create stabilization in the Middle East. Working with the populations of the countries they have invaded, the Coalition Forces attempt to help them set up democratic governments. Elections have been held in both Iraq and Afghanistan and Iraq is thriving with limited involvement from the Coalition. For Afghanistan it is still a struggle, but the international presence is still working together to bring democracy and get rid of the Taliban presence. “The year 2006 in Afghanistan began with the functioning of a democratically elected parliament—a bold and positive step forward in institution-building. Development and reconstruction have continued at a slow pace. Security has sharply deteriorated, and the Taliban insurgency has become more violent in spite of the enlarged International Security Assistance Force.”[7] 

The following years were not much better, and the threat to democracy in Afghanistan was very evident. The 2008 Asian Survey stated that “the Afghan government’s increasing fragility became evident in 2008. During this year, the Afghan public and international community became less optimistic about the future of a democratic Afghanistan despite continued reconstruction, improved security in the north, and the functioning of democratic governmental institutions in the country.”[8] In 2010, the Asian Survey goes into four issues shaping politics in Afghanistan, including violent attacks by the Taliban, the Haqqani Network and Hezb-e Islami (Party of Islam), electoral fraud, thoughts of starting conversations with the armed opposition, and the concern of the withdrawal of U.S. troops.[9] In 2012, they continue in discussing the withdrawal of U.S. troops and allied international presence stating that “2014 will mark a critical juncture in Afghanistan’s history. After more than a decade of arduous fighting against the Taliban and affiliated insurgencies and international political involvement, the U.S. and allied international presence in the country would be significantly reduced.” [10] This would cause the Afghan government to take hold of the reigns and this brought about concerns to the people. Afghanistan is to the point that they are committed to democracy; however, they are unsure to step out on their own because of the assistance that the Coalition has provided for them. Essentially, the Coalition has worked hand-in-hand with the Afghan government and now the government is afraid to let go. Things are far from perfect in Afghanistan and in Iraq, which still has its share of struggles and threats; however, without the international agreement to uproot terrorist cells and help to promote democratic states, these countries would not be at the level that they are at today.

The Challenges

Despite the efforts to bolster international diplomacy, there are still many things that get in the way. The United States took the hegemonic place in the War on Terrorism, and many feel that they dictated all the choices and decisions that went along with it. The United States is often projected with a less than favorable light, especially in the light of recent events. The United States has been the target of domestic espionage resulting in the leaking of information that has not painted the United States in good light with the international community. They have been considered hypocritical, unethical, and flat out rude.

Henry Farrell and Martha Finnemore explain the hypocrisy in there article “The End of Hypocrisy” that was in the November/December 2013 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. “Hypocrisy is central to Washington’s soft power – its ability to get other countries to accept the legitimacy of its actions- yet few Americans appreciate its role. Liberals tend to believe that other countries cooperate with the United States because American ideals area attractive and the U.S.-led international system is fair. Realist may be more cynical, yet if they think about Washington’s hypocrisy at all, they consider it irrelevant. For them, it is Washington’s cold, hard power, not its ideals, that encourages other countries to partner with the United States.” [11] With politics come many shades of grey. The criticism received from such events has not done as much damage as the public think. Despite the frustration that enveloped international interaction with the United States, Pew Research reported in July 2013 that the United States currently sit at a 63% average positive rating from 38 nations. [12] 

The Global War on Terrorism started as a reaction to a horrendous event that changed the course of time. It has generated an international cause that has boosted international cooperation. It has enabled countries that were tribal based begin to look toward an active, democratic government for guidance, it has brought together nations to fight for a common goal, and it has begun to bring together nations to develop democratic nations in a semi-hostile part of the world. The positive effects of a controversial event may often be over looked; however, they are undeniable. 

1. UN Security Council, Security Council Resolution 1368, S/RES/1368 (2001).

2. Ibid.

3. Samina Ahmed, "The United States and Terrorism in Southwest Asia: September 11 and Beyond," International Security 26, no. 3 (Winter 2001-2002): 80.

4. Jacqueline M. Gray and Margaret A. Wilson, "Understanding the 'War on Terrorism': Responses to 11 September 2001," Journal of Peace Research 43, no. 1 (Jan., 2006): 25.

5. Ibid.

6. Eugene J. Palka, Francis A. Galgano, and Mark W. Corson, "Operation Iraqi Freedom: A Military Geographical Perspective," Geographical Review 95, no. 3 (Jul., 2005): 375.

7. Nasreen Ghufran, "Afghanistan in 2006: The Complications of Post-Conflict Transition," Asian Survey 47, no. 1 (Jan./Feb. 2007): 88.

8. Rani D. Mullen, "Afghanistan in 2008: State Building at the Precipice," Asian Survey 49, no. 1 (Jan./Feb. 2009): 30.

9. William Maley, "Afghanistan in 2010," Asian Survey 51, no. 1 (Jan./Feb. 2011): 87.

10. Vanda Felbab-Brown, "Afghanistan in 2012: Limited Progress and Threatening Future," Asian Survey 53, no. 1 (Jan./Feb. 2013): 25.

11. "The End of Hypocrisy," Foreign Affairs, Nov./Dec. 2013, 23.

12. Pew Research Center, "Global Image of the United States and China," July 18, 2013, accessed November 11, 2025, http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/07/18/global-image-of-the-united-states-and-china/.

    
    

---

Bibliography

Ahmed, Samina. "The United States and Terrorism in Southwest Asia: September 11 and Beyond." International Security 26, no. 3 (Winter 2001-2002): 79-93. [suspicious link removed].

Felbab-Brown, Vanda. "Afghanistan in 2012: Limited Progress and Threatening Future." Asian Survey 53, no. 1 (January/February 2013): 22-33. [suspicious link removed].

Ghufran, Nasreen. "Afghanistan in 2006: The Complications of Post-Conflict Transition." Asian Survey 47, no. 1 (January/February 2007): 87-98. https://doi.org/10.1525/as.2007.47.1.87.

Gray, Jacqueline M., and Margaret A. Wilson. "Understanding the 'War on Terrorism': Responses to 11 September 2001." Journal of Peace Research 43, no. 1 (Jan., 2006): 23-36. [suspicious link removed].

Maley, William. "Afghanistan in 2010." Asian Survey 51, no. 1 (January/February 2011): 85-96. [suspicious link removed].

Mullen, Rani D. "Afghanistan in 2008: State Building at the Precipice." Asian Survey 49, no. 1 (January/February 2009): 28-38. [suspicious link removed].

Palka, Eugene J., Francis A. Galgano, and Mark W. Corson. "Operation Iraqi Freedom: A Military Geographical Perspective." Geographical Review 95, no. 3, New Geographies of the Middle East (Jul., 2005): 373-399. [suspicious link removed].

Pew Research Center. "Global Image of the United States and China." July 18, 2013. Accessed November 11, 2025. http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/07/18/global-image-of-the-united-states-and-china/.

"The End of Hypocrisy." Foreign Affairs, November/December 2013.

UN Security Council. Security Council Resolution 1368. S/RES/1368 (2001).