Brett Daniel defines these two in a simpler way; strategy is often called the ‘what we want to accomplish’ while tactics is referred to as the ‘how we are going to accomplish it.’ From the above definition, terrorism is a tactic used by a group of individuals to advance their beliefs and gain more power within a state (strategy). CONCEPT OF TERRORISM Since the 9/11 event, terrorism has been becoming more rampant and violent in nations of the world. Getting to the bottom and providing a solution has also been increasingly difficult and one of the main reasons is the lack of a confound definition. “Terrorism in the most widely accepted contemporary usage of term, is fundamentally and inherently political. It is also unavoidably about pow... ... middle of paper ... ...errorist attack known as 9/11, as a state, they came out stronger nation with strategies in how to not only defeat terrorism but help other states overcome and stand against attacks.
The United States, United Nations and all sovereign nations would need to take cooperative action that has never been accomplished. Terrorism, its' history, concepts, reasoning, methods, and financial roots are object of this research. Terrorism is one of the most extensively discussed issues of our time and at the same time it is also one of the least understood. The term itself “terrorism” means many different things to different people, cultures, and races. As a result, trying to define or classify terrorism with one universal definition is nearly impossible.
However, this model emphasizes on nation-state, where terrorism can be built as a powerful threat. Even realists have often ignored terrorism, favoring on the notion that crime-fighting, which can be addressed by nation states. Thus, the structural realist idea can be applied to internal and external terrorism. An argument that, “Understanding international organized crime and terrorism in terms of networks has become a widely accepted paradigm in the field of international relations" (Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, 2008). Such a terrorist group, al-Qaida has a worldwide network, and their local and global goals would be different.
Terrorism: Impediments to International Cooperation International cooperation in regard to thwarting terrorism leaves much to be desired. This relates to a number of problems. First, there is no internationally accepted definition of terrorism. Without such a definition it is difficult or even impossible to put in place policies and laws that will affect international cooperation and the ultimate reduction or elimination of terrorism. Second, too much perverse incentive exists for those that turn a blind eye to terrorism.
From my point of view, I believe there are logical methods available other than just using military action. Even though terrorism will always be around, Terrorism is an ongoing crisis throughout the world and should be dealt without hesitation using the most logical method. There are some questions that people fail to ask, like “What is the motive or goal of terrorists?” This question if answered could possibly help decide which action should be taken to prevent terrorism. Newman, E. (2006) stated that, “some analysts are reluctant to consider root causes because they refuse to accept that there may be any legitimate causes or grievances behind terrorism” (p. 749). These root causes can range from poverty to political grievances.
This is due to limited membership and a lack of resources. This makes terrorism morally distinct from war, because of its implicit and deliberate use of fear towards a group(Scheffler,2006,p15). Terrorists aim to spread fear amongst a broader population in order to gain a political advantage(Goodin,2006,p49). This suggests that global attention and publ... ... middle of paper ... ...on-democratic regimes around the world. Pogge(p13) reinforces this by pointing out unjustified moral appeals and assertions on both sides, such as Bush claiming that “America must defend freedom against the enemies of freedom”.
Domestic terrorism is important to understand especially if it is in your own country. It is difficult to understand the difference between a crime and a terrorist attack. The government is the only one that has priority as to how terrorism is defined; we as Americans rely on them as our primary resource of communication. Bruce (2015) stated that “the definition of terrorism will affect communication and response to this issue and so have consequences for society
However, to understand the political changes, one must examine the risks and power of terrorism across the globe. Across the United States, the belief that Al Qaeda acts as the supreme and central base of terrorism world wide is a common theory. In reality, Al Qae... ... middle of paper ... ...orism exists as a minority, both at home and abroad. Terrorism exists as a global issue and one nation does not hold the capability of putting such a widespread and untraceable sect to rest. My proposal is that the United States should take minor precautionary measures in order to prepare for future terrorist attacks and gather research in order to learn more about the enemy and dangers they will face.
Why does this aversion to negotiate exist? Many of those that argue for truth of this assumption have stated that negotiating with terrorists legitimizes them and in the process weakens democratic governments, leading to continued terrorist actions. Is this assumption valid? It is very important to study this assumption because it addresses both academic and social needs. From an academic standpoint, taking a strong stance against negotiations means preventing a ‘systematic exploration’ of the best way to tackle negotiations.
Sterman acknowledges that while studies on terrorism do not wholly represent what exactly lead to terrorism, they instead give a general insight of the issue, at the expense of clouding cases in which poverty or mental illness do lead to terrorism (2015, 2). Ignoring such cases may actually detract from finding out what connects some people to terrorist ideology (Sterman 2015, 2). Therefore, it is critical to study these particular cases, yet it is neither ethical nor correct to apply those findings in an effort to