What Is The Most Logical Answer In Response To Terrorism
Answers to Terror
James Swanson
ENG 122 English Composition II
Kari Lomanno
14 July 2014
Terrorism is defined as the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Unfortunately, when many people hear the term terrorism, they think of 9-11 and the horrific events of that day. That reason is why most individuals think that military force is the most logical answer to snuffing out terrorists. One of the largest problems with that course of action is the loss of human life associated with it. Unfortunately that may not be the largest problem associated with terrorism. The fact of the matter is that it will never go away. What we need to ask ourselves as a society is how we can combat terror. Some solutions could …show more content…
be to increase the ways we deter terroristic ideas, or possibly reach into the terrorist’s pockets and make their endeavors too expensive for them. Regardless of what avenue we as a society take, it seems as if precision strikes and military power may be the best way to wipe out terrorism; in reality there are other and less deadly ways of dealing with the issue that is terrorism.
Many soldiers enjoy the idea of heading overseas to fight the forces behind terrorism, but after four combat tours I am ready to find other ways to deal with the problem. Nigel Dower (2002) suggested that there are four possible ways to rid the world of terrorism; destroy terrorists, bring all terrorists to trial, freezing their assets, and tackle the causes that give rise to terrorism (pg. 3). War is an answer to terrorism, but it is definitely inappropriate by society’s standards (Dower, 2002). I believe that Dower is absolutely correct. Is the war we have been fighting for years actually a war? The definition of war is a state of armed conflict between different nations or states. So is it justifiable to say that we are conducting a war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan when we are actually targeting certain radical groups in those countries. I believe we are focusing on two areas that Dower suggests; destroying the terrorists, and eliminating the root cause of terrorism. In deploying troops to third world countries that support terrorism, we saw that terrorists hid behind a wall of fear they had created in the civilians. Treating the people of those countries with dignity and respect erased the fear that terrorists had instilled in them. It is referred to as “winning the hearts and minds”. The fact that terrorism can be settled without bloodshed and death shows that society has evolved beyond its primitive ways.
If an individual has a bad spending habit, what do you do to eliminate it? Simple; you limit or take away their money. Many individuals believe the same can be done with terrorism. Without knowing it corporations such as banks and legal entities are often complicit in international terrorism as aiders or abettors (Bachmann, 2012). If governments were to freeze bank accounts to conduct investigations, how should those accounts be targeted? Dower (2002) suggests that a fine balance should be struck to keep innocent individuals with middle eastern backgrounds from being accused (pg. 4). So does one just keep the terrorists from spending money for a couple months and this stop the problem altogether? I do not think so. According to Bachmann (2012), in his article that instead of taking away the money, governments would use anti-terrorism styled litigation to have the desired effect (pg. 4). This style of litigation might cause companies to be a little more careful with their finances. If a company takes the time to research the way that money is being used on investment opportunities, it may lead to terrorist fronts being abolished. So in theory, terrorism could be brought to an end if the forces behind its financing were forced to be held more accountable.
What if preventive measures made it utterly impossible to conduct a terrorist threat? If it was impossible to hijack a plane, would the terrorist give up? What if governments were to increase their surveillance? In the United Kingdom, for example, the average citizen is caught on surveillance cameras 300 times each day, while at Schiphol Airport in the Netherlands there are 1,350 surveillance cameras (Eijkman/Weggemans, 2011). While video surveillance may not be the overall answer to stopping terrorism, it could be a deterring factor in the frequency of terrorist attacks, or the deciding factor in identifying a terrorist after the fact. Things changed on 9/11/2001. Devices that had been considered harmless before suddenly became perceived as potential weapons and were prohibited from being carried on planes by passengers (Nickerson, 2011). One pre-9/11 evaluation conducted by the U.S. Department of Transportation produced 117 successful breaches out of 173 attempts (Nickerson, 2011). Why did it take losing the lives of over 3,000 people for situational awareness to increase? That was not the first terrorist attack against the United States, but because of its magnitude it is what changed the way searches are conducted. If searches were as through as they are now the attacks may not have fully been adverted, but there is a strong possibility that there would have been less bloodshed.
Technological advances and the way we use them may be a viable solution to the global war on terror. Instead of having a team of individuals on the ground to survey a situation, why not use an unmanned vehicle. The vehicle can be fitted with cameras for surveillance or weapons for precise attacks. “Such advancements in technology have revolutionized warfare by removing the threat to pilots, offering the advantage of surveillance before military operations commence, and eliminating the enemy’s recourse to counter-strike” (Dalziel,2014). Resorting to the use of drones for combat strikes removes the human presence from the battlefield, thus reducing friendly casualties. If drones are used for surveillance purposes, then ground troops will know exactly what is waiting for them before commencing an attack. When drones are used to correctly identify legitimate targets the lives of civilians and soldiers can be saved. “An example of such would be the destruction of a naval base instead of a school or a church, as the former provides a strategic military advantage” (Dalziel, 2014). If ground forces are being attacked from an unknown structure, historical data from surveillance drones may prove invaluable in identifying and combating the situation. Drones can be used for many different applications each of which can be justified when it comes to saving human lives.
Between 1941 and 1945 approximately six million Jews were killed by the German military, which is referred to as The Holocaust.
Was this an act of “terrorism” by the Germans to aid in their political gains? My question is what was the answer to this act of terrorism? The answer was war. In order for the killings to stop, more killing was needed. Not necessarily the killings of innocent civilians, but of troops. In this instance the only way to stop these “terroristic” acts was war. All of the thoughts and ideas I have discussed can be called valid answers to terrorism. But the question still remains, when is military force the most logical answer in response to terroristic actions? Were the past thirteen years in Iraq and Afghanistan justifiable as grounds to put an end to terrorism? Each year the United States government publishes The National Security Strategy of the United States. Before the attacks in 2001, it never really held much more than space on a bookshelf. “The 2002 version was different. Published in the wake of the attacks of September 11 it was seen as the defining document of the ‘War on Terrorism,’ the defining trope of the emergent Bush foreign policy” (Flint/Falah, 2004). The document focused more on a preemptive approach to violence, than self-defense (Flint/Falah, 2004). The United States government was using judicial law to justify going to war. Instead of waiting to be attacked the theory was to destroy terrorists before they were able to attack. Weather it is to save innocent lives or to prevent those lives from being in danger, war can be a justifiable solution to
terrorism.
As a society why should we care about preventing terrorism without military force? I have been deployed a total of four times during the war on terror. I have lost many people that I not only call friends, but instead they were my family. When it is compared to other wars the war on terror ranks seventh in U.S. combat deaths (Wikipedia, 2014). That statistic alone should be enough to counter the justification of war as an answer to terrorism. If ground troops had never been sent into Iraq or Afghanistan, would Improvised Explosive Devices (IED’s) have advanced over the years? This advancement of weapons was a measure of retaliation to the United States military presence overseas. In an article published by the Boston Globe the Taliban claim responsibility for an attack that claimed the lives on 21 people, mostly Western civilians (Ahmed, Azam and Rosenberg, Matthew, 2014). This attack was referenced to be retaliation of a coalition airstrike that wounded and killed up to 30 innocent civilians, mostly women and children (Ahmed, Azam and Rosenberg, Matthew, 2014). If those strikes has never taken place, would the counter attack have ceased to exist? Unfortunately I am unable to provide a sure answer to that question. One thing is clear though, where there is war there is death.
As a soldier it should be hard for me to say that war is not the answer to abolishing terrorism. That is not the case. I agree that violence is sometimes needed to end a situation. The problem with that is what do you do when violence is not the solution? When violence is answered with violence, the foreseen outcome is just more violence. It is important to understand that stopping terrorism incurs costs. These costs depend on the course of action that a government takes. If the money can be spent on the surveillance of known terrorists instead of bullets for guns, why not spend it? Instead of waiting for an attack to happen and then answering with violence, why not stop the attack before it even takes place. When these actions are taken time and money can be saved. Not only will that be true, but the lives of service members and innocent civilians may also be saved.
References
Ahmed, Azam and Rosenberg, Matthew. (2014, January 19). The Boston Globe. Retrieved from http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2014/01/19/taliban-call-attack-retaliation-for-strike-that-killed-civilians/ya2ZkhmDzr1szTc2PKvRtN/story.html
Bachmann, Sascha-Dominik. (2012, August) “Bankrupting Terrorism: The Role of US Anti-terrorism Litigation in the Prevention of Terrorism and Other Hybrid Threats: A Legal Assessment and Outlook.” Liverpool Law Review. Vol. 33 Issue 2, p91-109. 19p. Retrieved from Ashford Online Library.
Dalziel, Natalie. (2014, May/June) “Drone strikes: ethics and strategy.” New Zealand International Review. Vol. 39 Issue 3, p2-6. Retrieved from Ashford Online Library.
Dower, Nigel. (2002) “Against war as a response to terrorism.” PHILOSOPHY & GEOGRAPHY, VOL. 5, NO. 1. Retrieved from Ashford Online Library.
Flint, Colin and Falah, Ghazi-Walid. (2004) “How the United States justified its war on terrorism: prime morality and the construction of a ‘just war’”. Third World Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 8, pp.1379-1399. Retrieved from Ashford Online Library.
Frey, Bruno S. (2010) “Federalism as an Effective Antidote to Terrorism.” Review of Law and Economics. Retrieved from Ashford Online Library.
HolocaustNickerson, Raymond S. (2011, September) “Roles of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Meeting The Challenge of Terrorism.” American Psychologist. Retrieved from Ashford Online Library.
Eijkman, Q.A.M. and Weggemans, D. (2011, November)” Visual surveillance and the prevention of terrorism: What about the checks and balances?” International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 143-150. Retrieved from Ashford Online Library.
James Swanson
ENG 122 English Composition II
Kari Lomanno
14 July 2014
Terrorism is defined as the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Unfortunately, when many people hear the term terrorism, they think of 9-11 and the horrific events of that day. That reason is why most individuals think that military force is the most logical answer to snuffing out terrorists. One of the largest problems with that course of action is the loss of human life associated with it. Unfortunately that may not be the largest problem associated with terrorism. The fact of the matter is that it will never go away. What we need to ask ourselves as a society is how we can combat terror. Some solutions could …show more content…
be to increase the ways we deter terroristic ideas, or possibly reach into the terrorist’s pockets and make their endeavors too expensive for them. Regardless of what avenue we as a society take, it seems as if precision strikes and military power may be the best way to wipe out terrorism; in reality there are other and less deadly ways of dealing with the issue that is terrorism.
Many soldiers enjoy the idea of heading overseas to fight the forces behind terrorism, but after four combat tours I am ready to find other ways to deal with the problem. Nigel Dower (2002) suggested that there are four possible ways to rid the world of terrorism; destroy terrorists, bring all terrorists to trial, freezing their assets, and tackle the causes that give rise to terrorism (pg. 3). War is an answer to terrorism, but it is definitely inappropriate by society’s standards (Dower, 2002). I believe that Dower is absolutely correct. Is the war we have been fighting for years actually a war? The definition of war is a state of armed conflict between different nations or states. So is it justifiable to say that we are conducting a war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan when we are actually targeting certain radical groups in those countries. I believe we are focusing on two areas that Dower suggests; destroying the terrorists, and eliminating the root cause of terrorism. In deploying troops to third world countries that support terrorism, we saw that terrorists hid behind a wall of fear they had created in the civilians. Treating the people of those countries with dignity and respect erased the fear that terrorists had instilled in them. It is referred to as “winning the hearts and minds”. The fact that terrorism can be settled without bloodshed and death shows that society has evolved beyond its primitive ways.
If an individual has a bad spending habit, what do you do to eliminate it? Simple; you limit or take away their money. Many individuals believe the same can be done with terrorism. Without knowing it corporations such as banks and legal entities are often complicit in international terrorism as aiders or abettors (Bachmann, 2012). If governments were to freeze bank accounts to conduct investigations, how should those accounts be targeted? Dower (2002) suggests that a fine balance should be struck to keep innocent individuals with middle eastern backgrounds from being accused (pg. 4). So does one just keep the terrorists from spending money for a couple months and this stop the problem altogether? I do not think so. According to Bachmann (2012), in his article that instead of taking away the money, governments would use anti-terrorism styled litigation to have the desired effect (pg. 4). This style of litigation might cause companies to be a little more careful with their finances. If a company takes the time to research the way that money is being used on investment opportunities, it may lead to terrorist fronts being abolished. So in theory, terrorism could be brought to an end if the forces behind its financing were forced to be held more accountable.
What if preventive measures made it utterly impossible to conduct a terrorist threat? If it was impossible to hijack a plane, would the terrorist give up? What if governments were to increase their surveillance? In the United Kingdom, for example, the average citizen is caught on surveillance cameras 300 times each day, while at Schiphol Airport in the Netherlands there are 1,350 surveillance cameras (Eijkman/Weggemans, 2011). While video surveillance may not be the overall answer to stopping terrorism, it could be a deterring factor in the frequency of terrorist attacks, or the deciding factor in identifying a terrorist after the fact. Things changed on 9/11/2001. Devices that had been considered harmless before suddenly became perceived as potential weapons and were prohibited from being carried on planes by passengers (Nickerson, 2011). One pre-9/11 evaluation conducted by the U.S. Department of Transportation produced 117 successful breaches out of 173 attempts (Nickerson, 2011). Why did it take losing the lives of over 3,000 people for situational awareness to increase? That was not the first terrorist attack against the United States, but because of its magnitude it is what changed the way searches are conducted. If searches were as through as they are now the attacks may not have fully been adverted, but there is a strong possibility that there would have been less bloodshed.
Technological advances and the way we use them may be a viable solution to the global war on terror. Instead of having a team of individuals on the ground to survey a situation, why not use an unmanned vehicle. The vehicle can be fitted with cameras for surveillance or weapons for precise attacks. “Such advancements in technology have revolutionized warfare by removing the threat to pilots, offering the advantage of surveillance before military operations commence, and eliminating the enemy’s recourse to counter-strike” (Dalziel,2014). Resorting to the use of drones for combat strikes removes the human presence from the battlefield, thus reducing friendly casualties. If drones are used for surveillance purposes, then ground troops will know exactly what is waiting for them before commencing an attack. When drones are used to correctly identify legitimate targets the lives of civilians and soldiers can be saved. “An example of such would be the destruction of a naval base instead of a school or a church, as the former provides a strategic military advantage” (Dalziel, 2014). If ground forces are being attacked from an unknown structure, historical data from surveillance drones may prove invaluable in identifying and combating the situation. Drones can be used for many different applications each of which can be justified when it comes to saving human lives.
Between 1941 and 1945 approximately six million Jews were killed by the German military, which is referred to as The Holocaust.
Was this an act of “terrorism” by the Germans to aid in their political gains? My question is what was the answer to this act of terrorism? The answer was war. In order for the killings to stop, more killing was needed. Not necessarily the killings of innocent civilians, but of troops. In this instance the only way to stop these “terroristic” acts was war. All of the thoughts and ideas I have discussed can be called valid answers to terrorism. But the question still remains, when is military force the most logical answer in response to terroristic actions? Were the past thirteen years in Iraq and Afghanistan justifiable as grounds to put an end to terrorism? Each year the United States government publishes The National Security Strategy of the United States. Before the attacks in 2001, it never really held much more than space on a bookshelf. “The 2002 version was different. Published in the wake of the attacks of September 11 it was seen as the defining document of the ‘War on Terrorism,’ the defining trope of the emergent Bush foreign policy” (Flint/Falah, 2004). The document focused more on a preemptive approach to violence, than self-defense (Flint/Falah, 2004). The United States government was using judicial law to justify going to war. Instead of waiting to be attacked the theory was to destroy terrorists before they were able to attack. Weather it is to save innocent lives or to prevent those lives from being in danger, war can be a justifiable solution to
terrorism.
As a society why should we care about preventing terrorism without military force? I have been deployed a total of four times during the war on terror. I have lost many people that I not only call friends, but instead they were my family. When it is compared to other wars the war on terror ranks seventh in U.S. combat deaths (Wikipedia, 2014). That statistic alone should be enough to counter the justification of war as an answer to terrorism. If ground troops had never been sent into Iraq or Afghanistan, would Improvised Explosive Devices (IED’s) have advanced over the years? This advancement of weapons was a measure of retaliation to the United States military presence overseas. In an article published by the Boston Globe the Taliban claim responsibility for an attack that claimed the lives on 21 people, mostly Western civilians (Ahmed, Azam and Rosenberg, Matthew, 2014). This attack was referenced to be retaliation of a coalition airstrike that wounded and killed up to 30 innocent civilians, mostly women and children (Ahmed, Azam and Rosenberg, Matthew, 2014). If those strikes has never taken place, would the counter attack have ceased to exist? Unfortunately I am unable to provide a sure answer to that question. One thing is clear though, where there is war there is death.
As a soldier it should be hard for me to say that war is not the answer to abolishing terrorism. That is not the case. I agree that violence is sometimes needed to end a situation. The problem with that is what do you do when violence is not the solution? When violence is answered with violence, the foreseen outcome is just more violence. It is important to understand that stopping terrorism incurs costs. These costs depend on the course of action that a government takes. If the money can be spent on the surveillance of known terrorists instead of bullets for guns, why not spend it? Instead of waiting for an attack to happen and then answering with violence, why not stop the attack before it even takes place. When these actions are taken time and money can be saved. Not only will that be true, but the lives of service members and innocent civilians may also be saved.
References
Ahmed, Azam and Rosenberg, Matthew. (2014, January 19). The Boston Globe. Retrieved from http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2014/01/19/taliban-call-attack-retaliation-for-strike-that-killed-civilians/ya2ZkhmDzr1szTc2PKvRtN/story.html
Bachmann, Sascha-Dominik. (2012, August) “Bankrupting Terrorism: The Role of US Anti-terrorism Litigation in the Prevention of Terrorism and Other Hybrid Threats: A Legal Assessment and Outlook.” Liverpool Law Review. Vol. 33 Issue 2, p91-109. 19p. Retrieved from Ashford Online Library.
Dalziel, Natalie. (2014, May/June) “Drone strikes: ethics and strategy.” New Zealand International Review. Vol. 39 Issue 3, p2-6. Retrieved from Ashford Online Library.
Dower, Nigel. (2002) “Against war as a response to terrorism.” PHILOSOPHY & GEOGRAPHY, VOL. 5, NO. 1. Retrieved from Ashford Online Library.
Flint, Colin and Falah, Ghazi-Walid. (2004) “How the United States justified its war on terrorism: prime morality and the construction of a ‘just war’”. Third World Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 8, pp.1379-1399. Retrieved from Ashford Online Library.
Frey, Bruno S. (2010) “Federalism as an Effective Antidote to Terrorism.” Review of Law and Economics. Retrieved from Ashford Online Library.
HolocaustNickerson, Raymond S. (2011, September) “Roles of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Meeting The Challenge of Terrorism.” American Psychologist. Retrieved from Ashford Online Library.
Eijkman, Q.A.M. and Weggemans, D. (2011, November)” Visual surveillance and the prevention of terrorism: What about the checks and balances?” International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 143-150. Retrieved from Ashford Online Library.