Counterterrorism strategies and assignments

John I respectfully disagree with your opinion on the definition of terrorism. For me, it seems a mistake to label crime as terrorism because of the vagueness of the word. The U.S. Code appears to be flawed. As a personal victim of violent crime, I do not lesson my fear or pain. I was terrorized for months after. For you and other supporters of the U.S. Code, since the government was not victimized, this is a crime of a different nature. What you fail to realize is that the government itself is not a real or material construct, but imaginary based on the actions of its constituents. Any attack on an individual is a proxy attack on the government. In my humble opinion, the government is an extension of myself and not the other way around. Regardless, terrorism is flawed concept that is used to incite violence and rage against another group, I'd rather not use it if possible.

James

James it appears that you have identified the problems in defining whose job it is in combating terrorism. Your many lucid points paint a picture that describes a situation where there is much confusion in this area and a remedy is desperately needed. I fully agree with Schmalleger (2012) as he sings the praises of the benefit of the human resource as critical in this struggle against fear and oppression. I agree that a more collective effort is needed to combat the many problems that you pointed out in your essay, and for me, that means that individuals need to take responsibility for themselves and not rely on government agencies to save them. If terrorism is a collective problem, than a collective answer seems appropriate to me.

Nathan

Nathan, your pleas for a collective solution to the terrorism problem are very well received from my point-of-view. I thoroughly agree with your ideas on citizenship and exemption. Your example of the James Holmes case demonstrates the limitations of law enforcement agencies and places the onus of protection back on the community, where it belongs in my opinion. Having the appearance of strong law enforcement and counterterrorism force can work against the people due to the complacency that may set in. If we know that terrorism is someone else's job, there is no need to remain vigilant. 72 of additional levels at the Fusion Center at the NCTC, looks good on paper, but the chasm from the federal level to the local level is often avoided and those who need the resources never really get them. When the people themselves mature into the idea of independence and taking care of their own business, these problems of terrorism and whose job it is, will simply vanish, in my humble opinion.

Valerie

Valerie, I enjoyed your essay and have found some illuminating ideas contained within your writing. I strongly agree that the more local the force is responding to the terrorist threat, the better equipped that force is in dealing with the problem. Local officials live and work in the areas they police as their families and children are also part of the environment. This motivational factor makes this level of law enforcement more appealing in finding effective solutions to the terror problem. Federal authorities often times do not have the local knowledge that may be important in finding key clues to an investigation. Federal authorities are much more likely to use overkill than subtle skill to combat these problems which also exacerbates the situation where egos and machismo will get in the way of reason and ideal solutions. Keep it local, I agree.

Terrence

Terrence you bring up some important facts when dealing with abstract issues dealing with the terrorism issue. Winning hearts and minds is indeed integral in the process of establishing peace and order. This is indeed an emotional-psychological battle that can be won without violence or struggle if the proper ideals are put into the right place. Your ideas on partnership and cooperation resonate strongly with my own ideals and I really appreciate your attitude towards the civil rights aspects that are not being properly addressed in many ways, in my opinion. By understanding that this war is mostly a war of minds and invisible forces a better approach may be taken to address the problems of failure in the past.

Brandon

Brandon, I appreciate your comments on the subject of local law enforcement being used to fight terrorism but I do not understand how you example of Afghanistan applies to the domestic issues of your case. Afghanistan is not domestic terrorism and our military operations over there have been a failure of massive proportions. In the world's eyes, and according to international law, American military forces are terrorists to many. What is lost in this argument is the sense of empathy and letting locals truly take care of their own problems. The threat of Islamic terrorism is not much of a threat, nor has it ever been. The histrionics displayed by the media suggesting that military forces are needed to lesson collective fear ignores the issues of self-preservation and independence. International law has been rudimentary and categorically ignored by the American Military forces in the War On Terror, and to use it to support this argument demonstrates a bias that is typically American and emotionally charged.

Valerie

Valerie I tend to agree with your ideas on training and policies as effective safeguards against failure in the War on Terror. By commenting on the disconnect between intelligence forces and military forces underscores the larger issue of the lack of leadership on the issue. Policy and standardized training have improved over the years, but the counterterrorism forces are a scattered group of federal forces with little to no oversight. I also agree that technology can be used in a very attractive manner and should be exploited to its highest purpose. Eventually a new paradigm is needed that synthesizes the issues you bring up between the intelligence community and the forces that execute the operations that derive from those policies.