Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
A terrorist network does not seek legitimacy either, but acts without regard for human liberty, human rights, or international law. Terrorist networks speak only for themselves. While nation-states may support them through funding or providing safe havens, terrorist groups are not polities. They do not deserve the juridical considerations due to even the most rogue of nations. The rules for preemptive action must therefore be more flexible with regards to terrorism.
Rogue nations are also of particular concern for the United States today. Together with terrorism, rogue states pose "deadly challenges" to the United States," ("National Security Strategy," p. 13). Rogue states resemble terrorist networks in some ways: most notably by their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and their blatant disregard for international law. Moreover, rogue states often work in tandem with terrorist networks. They may share intelligence, access to weapons, and sources of funding. Together, rogue states and terrorist networks present the most significant security problems for the United States today. Diplomacy is impossible when dealing with rogue nations as well as with terrorism because of the absence of basic moral dignity and trustworthiness that must exist in diplomatic communications.
Preemptive warfare is often the only reasonable solution to the dual problem of transnational terrorism and rogue nation-states. The White House National Security Strategy proclaims, "the greater the threat, the greater the risk of inaction, and the more compelling the call for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves," (p. 15). Rogue states and terrorist networks covet and cultivate WMDs including but not limited to nuclear weapons. The severity of the threat cannot be underestimated. In light of the possibility of a terrorist attack using WMDs, not taking preemptive action seems ridiculous.
September 11 drew attention to the severity of the threats against the United States. Since then, preemptive action has minimized the possibility of a future attack. Terrorist networks have been crippled and international security has become fortified. Iraq was a rogue state whose leader has been summarily convicted as a war criminal. Terrorist networks easily embed themselves in rogue states and thus, the destabilization of Iraq was part of an overall strategy using preemptive warfare. The invasion of Iraq was one of possibly several preemptive attacks in the global war on terror and the United States should continue to use preemptive warfare as part of its defense strategy. Preemptive warfare will nip problems in the bud, taking out terrorists before they can target innocent civilians.
Using a preemptive warfare strategy against rogue nations is sensible strategy for similar reasons. Rogue nations operate outside the boundaries of international law; their leaders terrorize their own citizens and seek to expand their locus of terror abroad. They do not announce their plans, and stand poised to attack at any time. Without a preemptive military strategy, rogue nations could gain the upper hand by acquiring WMDs on the black market and using them against American targets. The real possibility for such an attack has bolstered the efficacy of the Bush doctrine.
Most arguments against preemptive warfare are understandable but unsound in light of the dual threat of rogue states and trans-national terrorism. The war in Iraq was justified in spite of the faulty intelligence, as it will ultimately weaken the potential of terror networks to use Iraq as a base. Preemptive warfare has not been used indiscriminately, or else the United States would have also struck at targets throughout the world wherever terrorist cells are known to operate. Arguments against preemptive strikes often criticize American hegemony, but American hegemony makes global security possible. More than any other single nation, the United States has the potential to combat the worldwide threat of terrorism and will make the world a safer place.
The United States will continue to use non-combative means of preempting terrorist attacks. In fact, the United States continues to cultivate deeper networks with peaceful nations who also wish to extricate terrorism. Improved intelligence services and more specialized military officers will also contribute to the most reasonable solution to global terror.
Ideas to Go: Preemptive Action." Retrieved April 21, 2007 at http://www.intellectualtakeout.com/ideastogo/documents/Preemption-to-Go.pdf
Kacerauskis, Vytautas. "Can a Member of the United Nations Unilaterally Decide to Use Preemptive Force Against Another State Without Violating the UN Charter?" International Journal of Baltic Law. 2(1), 2005.
National Security Strategy of the United States of America." White House. Retrieved April 21, 2007 at http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html[continue]
"Preemptive Warfare The Concept Of" (2007, April 22) Retrieved October 26, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/preemptive-warfare-the-concept-of-38342
"Preemptive Warfare The Concept Of" 22 April 2007. Web.26 October. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/preemptive-warfare-the-concept-of-38342>
"Preemptive Warfare The Concept Of", 22 April 2007, Accessed.26 October. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/preemptive-warfare-the-concept-of-38342
guerrilla warfare counterinsurgency directly apply post-9/11 terrorist problem faced U.S. 2. Literature on guerrilla warfare and counterinsurgency, as well as the very denotation of the former term, applies to post-9/11 terrorism combated by the United States since it defines the very nature of that struggle. The intensely covert forms of Islamic militant terrorist tactics, such as those carried out by insurgents in Iraq or those attempted by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,
Powers and Rights of the Constitution INSTITUTIONAL POWER: The Constitution gives the federal government the right to form a military service, including what is now the National Guard (Army National Guard, 2011), though it does so in cooperation with the states and localities to serve their interests as well. This section is important for a number of reasons, including the fact that it reinforces the differences between the state and
20th century has been one of remarkable technological advancements and of increased need to further improve human existence and the speed through which man runs about its everyday life. These ideas alone have demonstrated an immense capacity of man to research and invent new ideas, mechanisms, and to elaborate on the most important technological evolutions to set these mechanisms in motion. However, these evolutions have not been without flaws
The correlation between cooperative initiation and receptive tendencies, however, is much weaker" (p. 32). The overriding theme that emerges from all of the foregoing analytical models is the fact that although international conflicts and be effectively modeled and deconstructed in order to gain a better understanding of the precipitating factors and how they play out in real-world settings, they do not necessarily provide the insights needed to develop resolutions to
In this sense, "During the 1950s and 1960s, especially after the falling-out between China and the former Soviet Union, the Chinese government actively relocated Han Chinese to frontier provinces such as Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, and Heilongjiang, in order to consolidate the border in light of possible military threat from the Soviets" . Therefore, the decision to intervene in the ethnic composition of the region was not only a choice related
This demands that states treat terrorists just as they would any heinous criminal, whether an ordinary lawbreaker or war criminal. Law enforcement entails arrest, trial and sentencing, and only permits law enforcement officers to use lethal force when either their lives or the lives of bystanders are in immediate danger" (Gross, 2006, p 324). Michael Gross points out that in time of state declared war, it is difficult to actually
Army Structure; from 3-Brigade Division Units to Units of Action At the Pentagon, briefings routinely begin with the old adage that "the only thing constant today is change." Since the age of the Cold War, the United States Army has faced change at home and abroad, experiencing not only a massive transformation in technology and infrastructure, but also in the worldwide approach to warfare. As the end of front-line battles gave