Soft Power Argumentative Analysis

Hard power is not always an option or the best option because there are less drastic options available to respond to terrorists or terrorist incidents such as deterrence, diplomacy, talking to terrorist group, public diplomacy, and conciliation and peace. When a government uses soft power, one needs to be aware of the differences between state sponsors and terrorist groups or networks. For soft power to be successful it needs to set the political addenda in a way that will shape the preferences of others (Nacos, 2016). Soft power is subtle and co-opts people rather than forces them to comply. Military force alone cannot protect America’s interests and that is why the use of soft power is also an important tool in fighting terrorism.
Deterrence is debated upon whether it is an effective against fanatical terrorists. Robert Jervis believes terrorists are fanatics and have nothing they hold dear (Nacos, 2016) Because there is nothing the government can hold at risk, this type of soft power cannot be successfully used to deter terrorist threats. Furthermore, Richard Betts also agrees that deterrence has limited efficacy when battling terrorist’s threats (Nacos,
These approaches are American disaster relief, medical aid, and resources to build schools and train teachers to match American standards (Nacos, 2016). Public diplomacy is different than traditional government-to-government diplomacy because this aid is from one government and aimed at helping the publics. A large percentage of bin Laden supporters reacted positively towards U.S. measures after American-led relief efforts and became more favorable of Americans (Nacos, 2016). Showing other counties how the U.S. government can help, has had a positive effect towards their attitude regarding U.S. governments and negative towards any terrorist organization within its own