US Military Interventions and the Rise of Terrorism in the MENA (Middle East and North Africa)

Abstract

This paper explains the weaknesses of the arguments used by interventionists such as Human Rights, Ethics, Justice and Security issues in order to intervene militarily in the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) against terrorist groups or states. Therefore we test the necessity of these interventions by assessing the moral and legal basis and the relevance of the arguments that the US uses in justifying interventions, were they direct or indirect. Given that terrorism is a political weapon, we take into account MENA public opinion in assessing these justifications. First, we explain the main geopolitical context in the MENA. Who are the key players: allies and enemies? We set the main arguments used to justify wars and military support in the MENA in the name of counter-terrorism, which are mainly linked to Moral, Justice and Security issues. We then try to explain why these arguments cant be accepted by the Muslim people in the MENA. By analyzing the public opinion in the MENA, we show that these interventions create anarchy and hatred in the region and amplify terrorist threat in the world. Therefore, they can simply not be considered as the right counterterrorism policy. Order cant emerge from chaos.