Combating Future Terrorism

Combating Future Terrorism The Continuing Threat Posed by Islamic Terrorists Brinkley. J. (2013). Islamic Terror: Decentralized, Franchised, Global. World Affairs, 176(2), Professor of Journalism Joel Brinkley explains that many countries around the world have been attacked by Muslim radicals (he includes Tanzania, where extremists beheaded a Christian pastor because he was training to become a meat butcher and the radicals asserted this trade was "theirs alone"), and that "…jihadist atrocities" have become a "status quo to be lived with" in many parts of the world.

His point? There is violence all around the world due to the hatred and intolerance by radical groups, most of them Islamic, and Americans may as well get used to this chaotic and bloody situation. And indeed, he sees that more terrorist attacks against the U.S. are likely. He doesn't offer any way to avoid those attacks, however. Loss of Some Civil Liberties and Americans' Views on Civil Liberties Hetherington, M.J., and Suhay, E. (2011). Authoritarianism, Threat, and Americans' Support for the War on Terror.

American Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 546-560. The authors of this peer-reviewed article emphasize that public opinion polls taken following the terrorist attacks of 2001 show that those who already approved of the U.S. government being authoritarian -- and are "predisposed toward intolerance and aggression" -- do not become "more hawkish or less supportive of civil liberties" in responding to threats of terrorism (Hetherington, 2011, 546). However, those who were "less authoritarian" prior to the terrorist attacks tend to embrace "…more restrictive and aggressive policy stands" when they perceive additional threats of terrorism.

This partially answers the question as to whether there are more legislative actions are needed in order to protect the country from additional terrorist attacks. In other words, when it was revealed that President George W. Bush secretly requested that cell phone companies allow the government to peruse phone conversations and emails, there were protests but most people who had not been pro-authoritarian prior to 911 became supportive of those policies.

And the legislation called the Patriot Act (which allowed the government to conduct surveillance of citizens and authorized other seemingly unconstitutional behaviors to be legalized) -- while not specifically addressed in this article -- was in general accepted by those not previously in favor of strong authoritarian government behaviors. In other words, when threatened, Americans agree to tougher laws and more aggressive policies. Is international or domestic terrorism seen as the greatest threat to the U.S. Shlapentokh, B., and Woods, J. (2004).

The Threat of International Terrorism and the Image of The United States Abroad. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, X (2), 167-179. This journal article points out that internationally, America is an object "…of much fear and loathing," which has been building up over the past five decades, the authors assert. This article points out that negative views overseas about the U.S. should not be surprising, given that the U.S. is seen as "…a leading terrorist state" based on numerous military actions conducted by American throughout the world.

American military actions have led to civilian killings in "…Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, East Timor, Sudan, Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan" (Shlapentokh, et al., 168). Moreover, Americans should not be startled that so many foreign nations despise that the U.S. created a coup in Iraq, and has assassinated elected leaders in Chile and elsewhere. The point of this article is that terrorism will likely continue to be launched at the U.S. because the U.S.

is seen as "the destroyer of indigenous cultural traditions, a unilateral bully in international economic affairs…an ominous threat to the environment, human rights, and worker protection" (Shlapentokh, 168). How can the U.S. Use Socio-Economic Strategies Against Terrorists Waszak, J.D.G. (2004). The Obstacles to Suppressing Radical Islamic Terrorist Financing. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 36(2/3), 673-710. The author Waszak points to the difficulty that U.S. government interests face when trying to cut off funding for terrorists.

Laundering money for terrorists is easier than money laundering for drug traffickers, Waszak explains, because terrorists move smaller amounts of money and it is difficult for other countries to detect illegal transactions. Moreover, Waszak goes into the informal networks of money and why, because they don't leave a "paper trail," it is tough for U.S. security and intelligence agencies to close those money pipelines to terrorists. Protecting the Country from Terrorist Attacks -- Creating a Secure Environment Yusoff, M.A., and Soltani, F. (2012). Negative-Positive Security and the United States.

Asian Social Science, 8(15), 244-248. This scholarly paper relates to how the U.S. can attempt to secure its people and resources now that the terrorist attacks of 911 have proved that is it "…not possible by conventional approaches" to identify and destroy individuals in "weak states" that act independently of any official state authority. Al Qaeda is a classic example of the difficulty America has in keeping a secure environment. On page 247 the authors quote.