Re-Interpreting the ‘War on Terror’: Toward Global Stability or Democratic Consolidation?

Abstract

This paper examines the “War on Terror” in the context of its implications for global stability and democratic consolidation. The United States (US) initiated the war in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, launching it solely to combat terrorism, dismantle extremist networks, and prevent the spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). However, its outcomes for geopolitical stability and the expansion of democracy need a more nuanced analysis. The research begins with discussions on how terrorism interfaces with democracy in contemporary times. It explores whether the sole interest of the US in pioneering a Global War on Terror (GWOT) was for counter-terrorism toward global stability or whether it was a corresponding strategy to further export liberal democracy to other geostrategic regions of the globe. The research used a historical approach to engage perspectives from the Democratic Peace Theory. The discussion illustrated the dynamics and consequences of the war(s) in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East. Relying on both primary and secondary sources for its analysis, the research offers insight into the US’s silenced but obvious interests in the war. On the whole, the study highlights the paradox of the war. It establishes that though the War on Terror seemed to have markedly advanced democratic ideals to previously uncharted regions, it has equally complicated the proliferation of terrorism, which continues to impede the democratisation process in different parts of the world. In this light, the study advocates for considering other variants of democracy against a sole US liberal democracy.