Theoretically, the impact of military involvement has two components the spill-over military-intervention impact stirred by other causes of terrorism and military-intervention impact that targets terrorism per se. Some military interventions are applied to get revenge on terrorism. Others involve various reasons excluding or including counter-terrorism. To this effect, a combined impact of military involvement on terrorism is modelled and analysed in most nations. This analysis has implications for both practices in counter terrorism and terrorism research.
Terrorism
Measures to fight against terrorism should be envisioned as effective ways as they are not in themselves a reflection of terrorism that is imposed by the nation in the name of war-against-terrorism. If the policies that are being developed by a nation are shot in violence, their citizens need to get protection against terrorist attacks in future by maximizing internal security. The violence that is exercised against the poor and the worlds weaker individuals is surprising because it is getting to a significant proportion in the spread of democracy and war against terrorism, that one can wonder about the impact of military intervention and the fight that is against terrorism can lead to destruction and death as seen to the Iraqi and Afghani citizens, that further leads to hatred and dispel desperation that can make one loose faith in a democratic action that is collaborative. For example, the killings of Palestinian citizens by a regular laser, nuclear, and technologically equipped military are being qualified as self-defence.
Terrorism has been in existence and has been nurtured by oppression and injustice and is connected to extremism that can be religious, racial, political or sexual. In our current post-modern or modern times, the most common form of significant terrorism is related to spiritual fundamentalism entrenching in various parts of the world such as the United States, Arab countries, Asia and Israel.
It is evident that Al Qaeda has unprecedented safety operations by security and military forces all over the globe. In fact, they have evolved, grown and adapted into global insurgency that is even more deadly. This insurgency does not contain a direct authority that is centralized, and it is not linked to the Al Qaeda, but includes groups that are local and are stirred by radical ideology that is usually driven by factors like occupation of Iraq and invasion by the United States and geared grievances that can either be social, economic or local political.
American Counter terrorism policy usually weighs towards a murder or arrest approach that targets bad people. This attack usually assumes that the contemporary enemies (insurgents of Iraq and Al Qaeda) of the United States have a centre of operation. Moreover, it also assumes that terrorists need to be arrested or murdered to prevent global terrorism on Iraq. Therefore, the United States intelligence community and military has to be attentive and ought to have a uniform direction towards protecting the forces of United States or capturing militant leaders.
Is military force the best way to deal with the problem of terrorism
Military interventions and mass-massacres by coalition troops are not seen as terrorism but are described as democratizing and civilizing missions that are used to prevent the world high rates of terrorism. In order to fight terrorism for humanity, more powerful and less powerful terrorism needs to be fought to expose this violence. Military intervention of a country assists to fight against terrorism for democracy or humanity. This can help to oppose an individual terrorist such as one who blows himherself up or throws bombs to kill others. About three-thousand individuals were murdered by terrorists who were engineered by circles.
The attention of the intelligence community and United States military is uniformly directed towards protecting the United States forces and bringing down militant leaders, but not towards understanding your enemy. The United States, after September 2001 attacks, made military a top priority to deal with terrorism and other threats that can harm American citizens. This direct military action insisted on a pre-emptive and unilateral approach and it was acceptable on basis that established concepts of prevention may not work against terrorists who affirmed strategies that were unjustifiable to destruction and the innocents were targeted. Therefore, the United States implemented an approach that was described as a direct policy that insisted on Direct military action. The difficulty with this approach is that military action has never won any counter-terrorism.
The United States approach is one-dimensional and unilateral, and it insists on direct application of military-force to fight the war against terrorism. Given its economic and military power, an approach that was historical to terrorism and a sturdy pressure that was ether political or domestic might have been expected. A good example is the approach by the United States government of law enforcement while responding to the World Trade Centre bombing, on 26th February 1993, in New York City where six people were murdered and more than a thousand others were wounded. The investigation of bombing was handled by FBI agents and five assistant U.S. attorneys were to take care of the prosecution. Islamic fundamentalists groups were apprehended and then tried and sentenced for the offence. Various approaches have been used by the United States to respond to terrorist attacks. The then President Bush W. George warned that our military is powerful and prepared and it will not distinguish between those who committed these crimes and those who harbour them. Furthermore, President Bush assured implementation of broader counter-terrorism efforts which will rely much more on usage of military forces.
In contrast to bombers, terrorists that hijacked four airplanes did not escape but died along with their hostages. After the United States realized that they belonged to Al Qaeda terrorist network (a group based in Afghanistan and led by Osama bin Laden), Bush emphasized that their response to September 2001 attack will involve targeting those states that overlook terrorism, and warned that in each nation, each region can make a decision on its own and a neutral ground does not exist. A government that funds murderers and outlaws of innocents is itself a murderer and an outlaw and will participate at its own risk. Bush statements were framed a greater campaign to fight terrorism beyond destroying or capturing Al Qaeda network, and ensuring removal of support systems and stopping nations that support terrorism. This is why it will involve direct military force in order to stop criminals.
The fight against terrorism was not supported and shared by some dissenters. The concept of terrorism that was supported by a state was questioned. Terrorism does not require much of the base as well as it does not require identifiable resources of a government. It is dangerously irrelevant to search for those states that sponsor terrorism but the causes of terrorism should be fought. This means that the military can be used to deal with misery and despair in nations like Afghanistan. All available means should be strived to bring peace in the Middle-East. Declaring war on terrorism is dangerous because it involves using the US overwhelming power to destroy those organizations that espouse terrorism. This may not remove the course of terrorism from the arsenal of the distracted. The US will continue to reinforce its military as the only weapon on the war against terrorism.
Critics of the fight against terrorism have not only questioned the morality of using direct military force against those nations that fund terrorism but also its effectiveness. As Kchler puts it, the United States practice of aerial-bombardment cannot be defined from thirty-thousand feet. One cannot further guarantee absolute accuracy and civilian victims are inevitable. Even if they are justified, does it not amount to terror tactics Laqueur Walteremphasized that military actions that are in Afghanistan ought to be subscribed by political objectives that are limited and performed with a minimum number of civilian victims.
While conducting and in preparation for the Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan attack), the United States officials were conscious of the concerns of dissenters, and they insisted on how latest other-weapon technologies and complicated targeting mechanisms would assist to reduce resident casualties in Afghanistan. Moreover, the US targeted those governments that fund terrorism but not individuals living under such regimes. Terrorist and the Quest article described that their main opponent is the universal-network of terrorist-organizations and the state that is funding them. Though military can be engaged against foreign nations that fund terrorism, allies can be sought from the people that are oppressed by these governments.
During the Operation Enduring Freedom, this led to the elimination of Taliban from power (not the arrest of Bin Laden), followers and critics of the fight against terrorism debated on whether the fighting in Afghanistan was rewarded in a manner that was just. In the meantime, the international community and Americans were prepared by the United States leaders for engagements in future. The U.S Department of State in their Against an Islamophobia An analysis of global-terrorism article listed 7 nations that were thought by the United States to be funding terrorism and they included Sudan, Cuba, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Iran, and North Korea. In the Against an Islamophobia article, President Bush emphasized that the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan will not end. He went on to discuss the dangers mass destruction weapons (that can either be biological, chemical or nuclear) can have while in the terrorists hands, and to select three countries as targets in the fight against terrorism. We ought to prevent those regimes that support terror from frightening our friends or America with mass destruction weapons. These weapons are pursued aggressively in Iran. Iran usually displays its hostility to the Americans for their support of terror. These states comprise an affiliation of evil, thus frightening the peace of the world. These nations create a great danger by seeking mass destruction weapons. The US will not allow regimes that are considered dangerous to frighten us with weapons that are most destructive in the world.
Though most of the public continues to support the fight against terrorism, the view of an everlasting military involvement continues to get criticisms from human-rights activists and pacifists, as well as from those who undermined President Bush efforts by having in mind that he was going beyond his presidential authority limits. As per the Revolutionary sorting from terrorist, editors railed Bush sees himself as an imaginative Constitution or the Congress to remunerate his world-wide war on terrorisms and nations that support terrorists. President Bush declared Our nation is at war, but he never inquired or got an official pronouncement of war from the Congress. After he was given authorization (by the Congress) to apply force, that force was limited to nations, groups or individuals that are connected to the terrorism attacks of 11th September 2001. Nevertheless, he was not permitted by the Congress a carte blanche to remunerate the fight against all and any terrorists anywhere, or against nations that seek nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. It is important to apply this strategy (military force) if the fight against terrorism is usually political we should focus on the objectives that are political. The war on terrorism does only contain mounting body counts of militants or military victories that are captured or exterminated. One has to not only measure success basing on decline on attacks, terrorists morale being collapsed, and increase in safety amongst ordinary citizens but also in the improvement that is significant in the general reputation and political standing of the United States in the eyes of communities. It is authenticity that the Muslim world and the United States need to marginalize the ideologues that are radical.
The dispute whether the United States should apply direct military action against these countries became predominantly intense when President Bush insisted on the need to pre-emptively hit at terrorist intimidation. He emphasized that they will have to wait for too long if they wait for intimidations to emerge. They ought to take the fight to the enemy, interfere with his strategies, and deal with the worst intimidations before they materialize. On the other hand, the comments of President Bush echoed the accord in the counter-terrorism society because it is not possible to guard against every probable terrorist attack, a policy that is more effective is used to neutralize and identify terrorists intimidations before they are performed. The United States has given itself the right to-go-to war the moment it sees danger from unfriendly nations. What will be the outcome in circumstances where other regimes follow the United States lead, and integrate into their planned thoughts (for example, in a case where armed India decides to attack Pakistans nuclear armed, terrorists camps) This will result in global anarchy. A debate over the Bush doctrine rejuvenated established foreign policy controversies over whether the US should multilaterally be in an agreement with the United Nations or should act unilaterally to guard the interests of the United States.
The ineffectiveness of using direct military action can be seen in counter-terrorism early stages in the Northern Ireland that had long-term terrorism as a result of heavy handed responses. The Northern Ireland only achieved its success through long-term diplomatic and political initiatives. Initial heavy handedness of direct military action in Malaya in the 1950s was ineffective, until the implementation that included attempts that were serious in addressing social, political or economic grievances that underpinned insurgency.
Military attack is a form of self-defence and a right that is recognized by both the national and international law, that is, right to defend home, means of substance, water and life. Under such circumstances there is no difference between a terrorist who is hopeless, hungry and humiliated, who blows oneself up so as to murder those whom one believes is the course of misery and a soldier who hunts, destroys, harasses and shoots at every instant so as to grab what is not his.
Direct military action can sometimes help to fight the war against terrorism for humanity because of its determination and its ability to mobilize individuals for justice and peace. To do this, the military assist individuals to look at the cultural, economical, social and political impacts of strategies of ruling a minority who are only able to maintain their power through war, aggression and materialization. Military have nuclear weapons that act as a means of protection, against terrorist attacks that are probable, specifically preventive strikes that were sanctioned by the Bush administration.
Military action against Iraq
The debate that followed the remarks of President Bush at West Point was because of rumours circulating in the media that the Bush government planned to attack Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein from power. The idea was accepted by some foreign policy who argued that Iraq harboured an armoury of chemical and biological weapons and funded international terrorism though the evidence was not enough to support these charges. The United States will be violating international law if it attacked Iraq without the approval of the United Nations
President Bushs case against Iraq was made in 2002 before the United Nations General Assembly, to the point of the human-rights violation of the Iraq government against its own citizens, and its history of non-cooperation with the United Nation inspection of weapons that was forced on Iraq after the Persian Gulf War in Iraq. The administration of Bush debated all through the winter that mass destruction weapons were being harboured in Iraq in defiance of the resolutions of United Nations and the want for change in administration. The United States proposals to forcibly overthrow Saddam were opposed by key United Nation Members such as Russia, Germany and France. President Bush declared that Iraq would be invaded by the United States despite the fact that it is getting opposition from the United Nations. No country can possibly allege that Iraq is not armed, and will not disarm itself as long as Saddam Hussein is still in power. Some individuals in the Security Council have declared publicly that they will prohibit any decree that compels the disarmament of Iraq. Our assessment of danger can be shared by these governments. The dangers of inaction are far greater. Iraqs power to impose harm on every free nation would increase as many times as possible.
The conflict between Iraq and America is one characteristic of a broader subject of what duty should be played by military force in countering terrorism that has been funded by a state. The next phase of the fight against terrorism will be military action against Iraq. President Bush commented on the first-anniversary of September 11 terrorist attacks American has entered a great struggle that tests our strength, and even more our resolve. These views explain whether military actions are justified to fight against terrorism. The fight against terrorism is based in Iraq or Afghanistan, that is, within the worldwide Muslim community hearts and minds. Political issues should be addressed so as to minimize socioeconomic disparities, to build institutions and implement systems of governance.
Comprehensive and multilateral approach can be implemented to control terrorism through winning the minds and hearts of the Muslim world where most terrorists are placed. Uni-dimensional and unilateral approach, that is used by the United States needs to be abandoned because it has been unsuccessful in both Iraq and the US fight against terrorism. War has an exact definition in international law and does not involve itself with terrorism. Moreover, war is problematic as it puts emphasis on military action and an end-state of triumph, though this is defined. Al Qaeda is being transformed from a global threat that is general to a global mutiny that facilitates a re-conceptualisation of a plan. It is of our own good for global war to be re-conceptualised not as war but as an operation that is Global-Counter-Insurgency.
If it is to be successful, the new policy has to be bilateral in nature, that is, the need to rely on institutions that are international, norms and laws, together with implementation of a consensus that is international on countering universal terrorism so as to get a universal co-operation that is against it. For instance, the United States has to learn to work with its friends (especially those from Muslim World) and abandon its unilateral trade if a policy that is effective is to contain the new threats of global terrorism.
Moreover, deep domestic roots of alienation and Muslim rage must be fixed in Muslim nations. The causes of alienation and Muslim rage must be recognized whether they lie in social, political, or economic conflicts and issues, whether in Mindano, Palestine, Kashmir and Chechnya or in Western Europe. Muslim agenda that is radical is being fuelled by this alienation. A counter-terrorism policy must be a strategy that is comprehensive and developed to isolate and contain extremists, in which it is necessary to apply military measures though it is not a sufficient means.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment