According to Clausewitz (1832) “war is… an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will” (p. 75). The War on Terror is no different. As the U.S. continues to “pursue a strategy for the world we seek” (The White House, 2011, p. 2), we must recognize that our adversaries are doing the same. Thus, the War on Terror is a war of ideas, “ideas powerful enough to provoke violent emotions” (Echevarria, 2003, p. 15) resulting in wanton violence and a blatant disregard for human life. It is this aspect of the War on Terror, the ideological aspect, which make this war unwinnable. Despite this bleak prognosis, the United States and its allies can still take steps to render the efforts of terror groups and, indeed, the groups themselves ineffective …show more content…
More than targets of opportunity, COGs represent strategic objectives. Objectives that, if properly acted upon, can lead to the eventual defeat of our adversaries. Furthermore, a comprehensive COG analysis deftly identifies three criticalities essential to a COG’s success; critical capabilities (CC), critical requirements (CR) and critical vulnerabilities (CV). When looked upon holistically, a picture of the enemy’s strengths and weaknesses emerges. To use Eikmeier’s (2007) words, “the framework’s three simple questions—What is the desired end-state? How can it be achieved? What resources are required?—is systems theory boiled down to its essential elements in support of COG analysis” (p. 63). Therefore, to effectively counter terrorism, the United States cannot have a single counterterrorism strategy. Rather, multiple, group specific strategies are required that identify and act against the COG or COGs which provide these groups with the strength needed to advance their ideological goals. To that end, the following recommendations are made:
1. Using the threat assessment methodology (Appendix D, p. vii), the U.S. should take steps to categorize terror groups based on their capability, intent and presence in relation to U.S. interests at home and abroad. The application of a standardized assessment permits the U.S. to rank known terror groups in a logical manner
…show more content…
Having conducted a COG analysis, the U.S. should develop group specific strategies to address the five most violent/dangerous terror groups. These strategies must focus on the COG or COGs identified in the previous analysis, attack, both directly and indirectly, the identified critical requirements and critical vulnerabilities and encompass all aspects of our national power (diplomatic, information, military, economic, financial, intelligence and law enforcement).
5. Once developed, strategies should be reviewed bi-annually or as the strategic, operational or tactical picture changes. This approach will ensure two things. First, each strategy will be updated at least once during a Presidential term. Second, the analysis process will not stagnate, thus ensuring strategies remain relevant across administrations. Failing to recognize the importance of centers of gravity, ultimately leads to obsessively vague strategies, wrought with rhetoric and having little chance of success. Lewis (2014) states the importance succinctly when she writes, “policymakers must move beyond the assessment phase and begin building a comprehensive strategy. This effort must begin with a close examination of the sources of strength, intentions, and vulnerabilities [of our terrorist adversaries]… Only then can a coherent counter-strategy emerge” (p. 4). Indeed, to defeat the Islamic State, al-Shabaab, AQAP and other known terrorist groups, the U.S. must align its counterterrorism objectives
In the article “Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?”, Lionel K. McPherson criticizes the dominant view that terrorism is absolutely and unconditionally wrong. He argues terrorism is not distinctively wrong compared to conventional war. However, I claim that terrorism is necessarily wrong.
Retrieved from http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/268/540 White, J. R. (2014). Terrorism and homeland security (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Lykke advocates a 3-Legged stool approach to determine whether a national strategy has balance. The three legs of the stool are objectives, concepts, and resources. These three legs support a seat, on which our national strategy rests. If the legs are equal, our national security strategy balances comfortably on the stool; however, our national strategy slides off if the legs are unequal. Lykke describes the degree to which the stool leans as “risk” that potentially undermines our nation’s security. President Reagan’s remarks at the 750th Anniversary of Berlin ceremony provide an ideal model for a balanced national security strategy that mitigates risk through decisive application of instruments of power.
On September 11, 2001, our country was hit with enormous devastation, just after eight o’clock a.m. the first of the twin towers was struck by a suicide pilot, the second was struck slightly later. The towers fell just after ten o’clock a.m., devastating the entire country, and ruining the lives of many. A plane also hit the Pentagon in Washington D.C., and another in rural Pennsylvania causing just as much grief. The U.S. is still in mourning, but standing tall, more Americans showed their American pride in the following months than ever before. In the months to come the only thing that was on the minds of millions was: Should we go to war? War is necessary for the survival of our country. Going to war with Iraq is a fight against terrorism. Many people believed that going to war with Iraq is unjust. Some believe that there are other ways in looking at the situation.
Events that capture the entire world’s attention are few and far between. Fighting wars normally occurs between acknowledged enemies. In the war against terrorism, most notably, the war against Al-Qaeda, the enemy is unknown. One is not the enemy of the United States of America by virtue of one’s ethnic heritage. A Muslim is not a hidden enemy simply because he is Muslim. A Muslim does however become the enemy when he targets the world as a member of Al-Qaeda, the vision of one man. He was an intelligent and educated man who came from wealth and high esteem, who, guided by his faith, through radicalization, exile from homeland, and anti-western sentiments, built the terrorist organization known as Al- Qaeda. His name was Osama bin Laden.
It’s astounding how easy it is to forget that we are at war. Just recently, the Obama administration has declared war against ISIS. During his ISIS war speech, he refers to the enemy as “barbarians, terrorists and monsters”. He also promised to defeat ISIS, without the use of ground troops (Winsor). We do not like to watch our fellow Americans deployed to dangerous oversea locations. The President bashes ISIS and promises not to get completely involved with the conflict in order to gain support for the war. Unfortunately, his tactics are ineffective. A survey conducted by CNN shows that about 57% of Americans disapprove of how Obama is conducting his war on ISIS (CNN). Additionally, about 40% of Americans don’t believe we should fight ISIS
The terrorist attacks of September 11 led to a lot of pressure from the public to find those responsible and bring them to “justice”. In order to do so, President Bush declared a war on terrorism just a few days after the attacks, but little did he know that this very decision would also bring devastating consequences to many countries. Over time, people have been losing faith in the war and in its purpose. Consequently, countries whose economies have fallen under the Military Industrial Complex have manufactured a societal fear against Muslims and jihadists. As a result, they are now being stigmatized and portrayed as the enemies of democracy, and of the United States in particular. To make matter worse, it has driven western countries to implement many extreme security measures that undermine the democratic principles they are attempting to spread over the world. The war on terrorism has had many negative consequences on modern society, which include a legitimization crisis of democracy, mainly in the U.S, and the manufacturing of moral panics over security risks that have led to the criminalization and stigmatization of the Arab world.
Terrorism refers both to the act (the verb) and its accomplishment (the noun). The effect of terrorism, the noun, is accomplished by various means. We can "read" back from the effect and recognize the means. The dead bodies are the effects, and we read back from those bodies and their circumstances, the means that produced them. Our understanding of peace as knowledge might productively begin then with the effects of war itself as terrorism--the demoralization, intimidation, and subjugation of people especially as a result of a political weapon or policy. The effect of terrorism is not so very different from the effect of war; in fact, the dividing line between terrorism and war has long depended upon the difference between the use of force legitimated by a state as opposed to the laissez faire or ad hoc use of force or threat by individuals and/or non-state groups.
Finding a proper, well-accepted definition of what constitutes terror is extremely difficult. There are many challenges that confront scholars, experts, and everyday people when it comes to defining terrorism and terrorists. Differing backgrounds and cultures of those defining terror in addition to differing histories are just one of the many challenges facing those that wish to define terror. Furthermore, labeling a group or an individual as a terrorist could be considered offensive, especially in today’s politically correct environment, potentially damaging those in the political arena. However, on the flip side, labeling someone as a terrorist can also serve a political purpose as in the case of being propaganda towards a war effort, or to help define an enemy. Nevertheless, the main problem with not being able to have a widely accepted definition of terrorism is that “It is impossible to formulate or enforce international agreements against terrorism” (Ganor, 300).
On september 11, 2001 there was an attack on America. Four airplanes were hijacked, two were crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City, the third crashed into the Pentagon in D.C. and the fourth got stopped by a passenger. It was the first terrorist attack on the U.S. soil. Thousands of lives were lost that day. This attach was the most devastating act of belligerence on U.S territory since the Civil War (Terrorism, 2011). This even had an enormous influence on America and its history. It led to numerous short and long term effects. On September 20, 2001, former president George W. Bush announced publicly that he declares “War on Terror”. After this announcement, our country has altered. To determine if an effect was positive or negative, determines on the view point of the person. Some of those effects include; USA Patriot Act, creation of TSA, the War, and issues soldiers have after combat and health problems of Ground Zero. However, if the effects were positive or negative, it still made a massive mark in our country.
...agree with. The hardest aspect of determining whether or not terrorism is morally right or wrong is the various definitions that it can have. As mentioned earlier I relate to Walzer’s definition of terrorism and understand it as he does. As discussed I feel that terrorism is wrong because it is akin to murder, it is random in who it targets and when, and no one has immunity. There are objections to this argument which is that conventional war is worse than terrorism therefore if war is justifiable then terrorism can be as well. As argued the difference between war and terrorist is the way of choosing your victims, which in my mind refutes this objection. Terrorism exists and whether it is right or wrong can be argued respectfully.
The most prevalent threat is now the possibility of terrorist attacks against civilians within the US and abroad by non-state actors bound together by anti-American ideologies. Containment and deterrence are no longer relevant in US military and political strategy. The new defense document titled “The National Security Strategy (NSS) of the US” released after the 2001 attacks became known as the Bush Doctrine, named after the then President of the United Stated George W. Bush (Constitutional rights foundation, 2010). Two main points of the new document highlighted the US ability to conduct preemptive strikes, and act unilaterally if necessary. The US willingness to pursue preemptive strikes rose challenge.
The word terror dates back to the French Revolution. “A terrorist was, in its original meaning, a Jacobin who ruled France during la Terruer” (Moeller 20). Terrorism has clearly become much broader in the years since its origination. Since the concept was first birthed in France it has been used for separatist, nationalistic, political and religious ends, etc. In the book “Packaging Terrorism”, author Susan Moeller states that, “the goal of terrorism is to send a message, not to defeat the enemy”.
Political violence is the leading cause of wars today. Personal agendas have led to many of the political objectives that cause violence today this has caused many problems throughout the world and will continue to do so until a solution to this issue is found. Political objectives have been advanced involuntarily dependent upon the kind of government a nation exercises. For instance, in a democratic nation political groups must worry about convincing the majority in order to advance ethically. Those who try to influence the majority through acts of violence are considered today as “terror” organizations. Though perhaps if it were not because of the recent 9/11 terror attacks that maybe such warrants would not be seen as terror attacks, but instead the result of partisan advancement. Acts of terrorism have been around throughout the evolution of mankind. Terror attacks have even been traced back as far as the religious roots of an ancient middle east (Ross, Will Terrorism End?, 2006). However as man evolved, so did terrorism. Today’s extremism involves some of the main characteristics of ancient terrorism, but much more developed. Political advancement is no longer the root cause of terrorism acts. Instead influxes of “holy” wars have been appended the prior definition of terrorism. Mistakably modern terrorism has been confused for Political violence with political objectives, but research will establish that the nature of terrorism is fundamentally different from other forms of political violence.