Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Terrorism
How have worries over WMD terror attacks distorted a balanced approach to policy on terrorism?
Intelligence failures led to the presumption that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (Jervis).[footnoteRef:1] The presumption was rooted in a widespread policy playing upon mortal fears, rather than on reason. "Although administration officials exaggerated the danger that Saddam posed, they also revealed their true fears when they talked about the possibility that he could use WMD against the United States or its allies," (Jervis, p. 57).[footnoteRef:2] It also "made little difference" that Saddam was shown to have no WMDs (Jervis, p. 57).[footnoteRef:3] Therefore, the approach to policy on terrorism has been overtly shaped by fear mongering rather than on intelligence. [1: Jervis, Robert, 2005.] [2: Jervis, Robert, 2005, p. 57] [3: Jervis, Robert, 2005, p. 57]
At the same time, policy on terrorism is always going to entail some type of trade-off between preparing for the worst possible scenario (eg. WMDs aimed at the United States and its allies), and encouraging the best possible scenario, however, unlikely (eg. The elimination of terrorist networks). Fears often to play themselves out in the real world, and not just on the screen during a Jerry Bruckheimer movie. Terrorism is real, and as Pillar puts it, the goal of counter-terrorism is not necessarily to save the maximum number of lives but to create a long-term solution to the problem.
Fear has also served as a justifiable means to an end. When viewed from a utilitarian and consequentialist ethical stance, the use of fear works as an underlying motivator for anti-terrorism policy creation and the public policy support thereof. As Sageman points out, Americans have beefed up airport security measures, and encourage their neighbors to the North to do the same. Ordinary citizens are more alert and...
107).[footnoteRef:4] Europe, on the other hand, has had less success developing a feasible counter-terrorism approach with its lack of coordination within the Schengen zone. [4: Sageman, M., 2008, p. 107]
However, a balanced approach to policy on terrorism does not have to be built on nebulous information or Hollywood imagery of death and destruction. In light of th second Gulf War, it is clear that the European response, however lax it may seem to the Americans, represents balace. A balanced approach is rooted in evidence, intelligence, and practicality. As Sageman states, Americans were misled not just about the presence of WMDs in Iraq but also about the presence of jihadist sleeper cells in the United States (p. 106).[footnoteRef:5] The terrorist attacks of September 11 represented gross institutional failures to enact anti-terrorism policies that would have identified the 9/11 attackers better (Sageman)[footnoteRef:6]. [5: Sageman, M. 2008, p. 106] [6: Sageman, M., 2008]
Still, the fears over WMDs have created a scenario whereby the public expects a policy of terrorism that is built on preparation for the worst-case scenario. Fears have altered public attitudes, consumer behaviors, and social norms. Moroever, counter-terrorism is expensive. In a resource-limited landscape, counter-terrorism measures should be finely honed, and well crafted. Counter-terrorism could be built on improved intelligence and institutional coordination, leading to robust responses to perceived and actual threats. Fears about WMDs can be mitigate by the hard facts, which would create sound long-term solutions to the problem.
(2) How do the current trends in terrorism affect the United States?
The Unrestricted Warfare Symposium report "Global Salafi Terrorist Networks" presents a disturbing picture of the current trends in terrorist ideology and social patterns.…
They are assured to acquire attention of the media, provided right ascription of the support of the occurrence. Further, a good protection against these dangers is very hard and costly; it will continue to be as such. A lot of the know-how linked with the buildup of the CBRN weapons-particularly chemical and biological agents possess genuine use in civilians and are categorized as twofold use. The widespread reach of
The USA Patriot Act: This was a law that was passed after September 11th. It is giving the police and intelligence officials the power to go after terrorists organizations easier. As it lifted various Constitutional protections when investigating these offenses. Counter Terrorism: These are the activities that: federal, state and local officials are taking to prevent future terrorist attacks. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD): These are weapons designed to inflict large amounts
They are seeing more and more of that in some of the militias. The trend is that there's now a multitude of these groups out there -- the common-law courts, the sovereign citizens, the secessionists, the Republic of Texas -- that type of group. Even these particular groups, while they may profess anti-government sentiments, they've developed mature political agendas, and appear content to proceed within the bounds of legitimate political
The Myth of Homeland Security. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2003. Thornton, Rod. Asymmetric Warfare: Threat and Response in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge [u.a.]: Polity, 2007 Ranum, Marcus. The Myth of Homeland Security. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2003. Thornton, Rod. Asymmetric Warfare: Threat and Response in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge [u.a.]: Polity, 2007 Thornton, Rod. Asymmetric Warfare: Threat and Response in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge [u.a.]: Polity, 2007 Thornton, Rod. Asymmetric Warfare: Threat and
Mass Casuality Decontamination Mass Causality Decontamination Throughout the past era, worries about possible terrorist acts concerning weapons of mass destruction (WMD) directed Congress and the President to obtain a complete counteract terrorism strategy that was aimed at stopping a chemical, biological, or nuclear attack and improving domestic attentiveness. The organization of choice for national significance management has been the Department of Defense. Of the $1.2 billion taken in the FY 2000 business
war on Iraq, and considers whether U.S. policy towards Iraq can prevail, through an analysis of eight facets of this policy: international trade; weapons of mass destruction; democratization; the war against tyranny vs. The grab for oil; the "shock and awe" tactics used at the beginning of the war; the U.S. occupation vs. liberation; whether the new government of Iraq will be Iraqi run or whether Iraq will become