“War on Terror” has been highly criticised not only because it had violated the basic fundamentals of human security, but also because it had underestimated the role of peace organisations and therefore lead the world into a third global war. Since the Bush declaration of 20/11 in which he stated that: War onTerror will not come to an end, until every single terrorist is defeated, the world view on peace and democracy started to change. Opponents to the war argue that war on terror has been a mistake since the beginning. They firstly argue that the term “War” is not accurate since the enemy is transparent. Thus, military action against weak nations was not necessary mainly because such war is unpredictable. Indeed, several debates occurred on terrorism and its relationship with American economic interests. Precisely, some political observers believe that “war on terror” has only been a US cover to fulfil its needs from natural resources following the Marxist model in a way that: “capitalism needs war by competing for resources” argued Middleton (2002:2). They claim that war on Afghanistan was a scam as not a single terrorist has been killed after a month of continued bombing: they argue that great powers created and funded Taliban in the 1980s to fight Russians and then made from Afghanistan an oil and gas colony because of the Caspian basin which is the largest supply of oil on earth. “US interests in exporting Caspian energy resources match with its massive desire to increase the oil reserves” agreed Chossudovsky (2005:67). In addition, they refer to the fact that Afghanistan was invaded months before 9/11 and that the terrorists who launched these attacks were not Afghanis, but Saudi Arabians who apparently were trained in USA and Germany. ”Attackers were trained by Germany and USA where Ben Laden himself chose them for training in Afghanistan” mentioned Chossudovsky (2005: 57). Therefore, they claim that war on terror has been a US economic plan because President Regan had the same plan to declare it twenty years ago. “20 years ago, The Reagan administration tried to make from “war on Terror” the core of US foreign policy” said Vavrina (2006:13). Similarly, “war on terror” had also included Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen which in fact, are also considered as American oil reserves. According to Chossudovsky (2005:70): “Yemen is a US interest because geographically it combines the important transport routes as well as being a petroleum reserve “.

The case of Iraq, in contrast, has been far more complex:  USA has been accused of invading a country which is a member of the United Nations, giving false evidence on Iraq’s possession of nuclear programmes and transforming the country into a dead soil. Likewise, it is believed that hidden crises will turn Iraq into Afghanistan if no efforts were made to address Iraqis into the right path of democracy as Kate Allen, Amnesty’s UK director believed that: “local representation is the key to a democratic Iraq otherwise the world will experience the birth of a new Afghanistan”. Above and beyond, many politicians blame the USA for the active movements of terrorists, not by financing them, but by invading their countries and in turn terrorists tend to revenge by using such weak methods. Another important critic  is that war on terror had narrowed human’s freedom and security rather than enhancing it. Debatably, many activists believe that war on terror undermined civil liberties, human’s dignity, rights and security. This can be clearly shown in: Guantanamo Bay and Abu-Ghraib prison where people were thrown into and tortured. A large number of these detainees were either innocents or had minor criminal convictions such as: car breaking, yet nothing to do with terrorism. It had also blocked the work of International Organisations such as: Amnesty International which is considering war on terror as a major threat to its activities as it has clearly stated (2003) : “The “war on terror” has made the world a more dangerous place and created divisions which make conflict more likely”.

 Some other commentators believe that “war on terror” is similar to terrorism arguably because 9/11 attacks are not a factor for the continuing bombing on Iraq and Afghanistan. Besides, war on terror is seen as a body that widens the world (Muslims vs. Western bloc). Therefore, the idea of ccosmopolitanism is rejected due to the occurrence of military, cultural and religious clashes as Dunn (2006:1) clearly put it: ” Since the 9/11 ‘clash of civilizations’ between ‘Islam’ and ‘the West’ occurred as a part of the post-Cold War era”. A part from the international level, war on terror had also impacts on Americans themselves since billions of dollars were spent during the last decade. This had affected their lives negatively in both economic and social level. Many Americans today face debts, unemployment as well as being targeted when travelling abroad.

Other supporters of George W. Bush and his war on terror believe that military action was inevitable because nothing can stand against terrorism. They argue that war on terror brought a kind of stability to Iraq and is creating a better democratic future for Iraqis. They also believe that the case of Afghanistan, although it was a struggle, USA is working hard to modernise Taliban and introduce them to a massive transaction. However, war on terror has already drawn an unpaved path for these nations because it is almost impossible for them to catch up with the developing world or even adapt with modernization and globalisation.