Part 3. Terrorism and Existing World Order "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror"

The remark, "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror," by U.S. President Bush in November 2001,[18] has been a source of criticism. Thomas A. Keaney of Johns Hopkins University's Foreign Policy Institute said "it made diplomacy with a number of different countries far more difficult because obviously there are different problems throughout the world."[19]

The U.S. has a network of secret jails for terrorist suspects;[20] Abu Ghraib is but one example. Many of the countries that these jails are in would consider their existence in their territory without their knowledge as an act of war if a lesser nation would have done it.

Independent journals in Iraq were repeatedly bombed to the ground in several locations (amid claims of mistaking them for al-Qaeda buildings), yet a memo about the planned bombing of the very same al-Jazeera TV headquarters without notifying first the peaceful allied nation of Qatar (where al-Jazeera resides) surfaced and embarrassed the Bush administration.[21] This suggests the rights of other nations are to be rearranged retroactively by loopholes and exceptions to fit the needs of the "war on terror" being waged. In part by misleading allies rather than negotiating with them, which has been the reaction of smaller democracies fighting terrorism.

There have been important criticisms that there have been double-standards in Bush Administration's War on Terror. These double-standards have involved the unwillingness of the United States to send military troops into Pakistan to search for Osama Bin Ladin because the Bush administration has been unwilling to violate the sovereignty of Pakistan, who has exported nuclear technology to North Korea. Whereas the Bush Administration has had no inhibitions about violating the sovereignty of Iraq on claims that Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction on Kurdish citizens in Iraq, and had ties to al-Qaeda. These actions raise concern to critics about the objective of the invasion, mainly having it look like the real objective of the invasion in Iraq was to secure the oil reserves. Many observe that the U.S. government has had no qualms about supporting groups opposing local administrations perceived to be hostile to U.S. interests. The alleged mastermind behind the September 11, 2001 attacks was part of the Mujahedin who were sponsored, armed, trained and aided by the CIA to fight Russia after it invaded Afghanistan.

Pax Americana: How America Treats the World

Pax Americana (Latin: "American Peace") is an appellation applied to the historical concept of relative peace in the Western hemisphere and, later, the Western world, resulting from the preponderance of power enjoyed by the United States of America starting around the turn of the 20th century. Although the term finds its primary utility in the later half of the 20th Century, it has been used in various places and eras, such as the post United States Civil War Era in North America and globally during the time between the Great World Wars. In this modern sense, the term has come to indicate the military and economic position of the United States in relation to other nations.

The modern Pax Americana era is cited by both supporters and critics of the United States foreign policy after the Second World War. Many commentators and critics focus on American policies from 1992 to the present, and as such, it carries different connotations depending on the context. For example, it appears repeatedly in a September 2000 document, Rebuilding America's Defenses, by the Project for the New American Century, but is also used by critics to characterize American dominance and hyperpower as imperialist in function and basis. From about the mid-40s until 1991, the U.S. foreign policy was dominated by the Cold War, and characterized by its significant international military presence and greater diplomatic involvement. Seeking an alternative to the isolationist policies pursued after World War I, the United States defined a new policy called containment to oppose the spread of communism.

Sometimes the tern is applied to define the USA as an imperialistic state. American Imperialism is a controversial term referring to the influence of the United States. American imperialism concepts were initially a product of capitalism critiques and, later, of theorists opposed to what they take to be aggressive United States policies and doctrines. Although there are various views of the imperialist nature of the United States, and thus describe many of the same policies and institutions as evidence of imperialism, explanations for imperialism vary widely.

More specifically, critics of American influence contend that the Bush doctrine of advancing democracy throughout the world is all that is needed to justify the term "American Imperialism", while advocates of American influence define imperialism as colonialism to some degree and who claim protectionism rather than imperialism for recent American international behavior. Such people emphasize the American tradition of always returning governance back to the indigenous people, even allowing Native Americans to have sovereign nations within American borders, which are focused on decolonization, and insisting on a rejection of previous isolationist policies, do not constitute the embrace of imperialism.

Some critics claim that the war on terror is truly a war on Islam itself. After his release from Guantanamo in 2005, ex-detainee Moazzam Begg appeared in the Islamist propaganda video 21st Century CrUSAders and claimed the U.S. is engaging in a new crusade.