A New Era of Combat After the tragic events of September 11, 2001, those impacted sought the guidance and protection of their leaders against the vast enemy as they saw it that lies outside of the national borders. Some thought diplomacy would be the healer of the strife, while others though that warfare would be means to achieving long term peace and prosperity, whatever that may look like. Either way, at that moment more than any other, it became the most imperative for each branch of the legislative body to unite, as a way to collectively formulate a counteractive ‘battle’ plan to achieve the collective goal of national security.
Collectively, it can be said that politics since its inception has been more about building egos and self promotion rather than care and concern for those less fortunate than themselves, but after the terrorist attack that took down two of the strongest monuments to the strength of the US’s greatest city, politician and citizen alike gathered together to show the world that the United States would in fact rise above and prosper. In the years since, the new battle has been fought on the front lines of Afghanistan and Iraq in the quest to rid the world of evil, but it has also been fought in the halls of Congress and the hallowed walls of the White House. Only there it was to ferociously argue about what the best course of action would be in the US-led battle on terror, but this time it would be to battle about who was ‘right’ and who was ‘wrong’.
Historically, the legislative body on Capitol Hill has been delegated the erroneous task of hashing through hour upon hour of complex debate on national and international policy. Afterwards, the Executive Branch is left with the task of executing their constitutional authority to either approve, or deny the efforts of the hill by means that have often been interpreted as not being devoid of self service in their own right.
In the months after the 9/11 attacks, the next option for the US Government, as seen by its leaders, was to move forward with a pre-emptive strike against what they knew to be either documented terrorist organizations, or at the very least terrorist sympathizers. The first battleground for the US-led coalition would be in the Afghanistan region, leading up to the March 19, 2003 campaign against the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein against the citizens of Iraq. Five years later, the US still finds itself embroiled in an international combat mission of epic proportions. While similar in ways to other conflicts, this was a new era in combat in that the enemy was more an ideological difference than anything else. The fight was against an intricate system of rogue agents, who believed so strongly in their cause, that they would stop at nothing if it meant they would come out victorious.
As for roles of each individual arm of the government, the online Encyclopedia Wikipedia writes that, “The federal government of the United States is the centralized United States government body established by the Constitution. The federal government has three branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial. Through a system of separation of powers or “checks and balances,” (inspired by the work of the Enlightenment philosopher Montesquieu) each of these branches has some authority to act on its own, some authority to regulate the other two branches, and has some of its own authority, in turn, regulated by the other branches,” (“Federal Govt.” p.1).
With that being said, it begs the question whether or not the three primary branches of the US Government really play an equal role in the international policy making decisions and implementation, or if it is the case that as the primary level of the political structure, that the Executive Branch has found a way to usurp its other two counterparts in its quest to hold dominance over the negations table. That question alone has been at the route of a great debate.
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. “Federal Government of the United States.”
Accessed Online On: 26 March 2008. URL: http://en.wikipedia.