The response of the U.S. and the international community to the continued threat of terrorism has and will continue to be an issue of great concern to a majority of leaderships all over the world. As recent events have shown, the world must continue its vigilance in the face of terror (Dennis, p. 124).
In the recent past, 19 terrorists hijacked four airplanes and changed the course of history (Huntington, 2006). Before the 9/11 terrorist attack, America was mighty enough to reorder the world, but after it was still vulnerable to silence worse attacks. This asymmetry is precisely what is so appealing to those who use terrorist tactics (Dennis, p. 127). It is a way for the powerless, the would-be powerful to confront stronger, more powerful adversaries and thereby also attract attention to themselves and their cause (Schwabach, 2004).
There appears to be an endless supply of people willing to kill themselves through suicide bombings while the West appears to grow tired (Robert, p. 84). This is indeed the fundamental reason that the White House and U.S. National Security Council adopting various strategies for combating terrorism. It is precisely good to recognize that the U.S needs a much richer mix of countermeasures, in addition to military force, diplomacy, political reform, and economic development to prevail against this threat and that military force alone cannot do that (Schwabach, 2004).
It is certain that have entered a new type of war, a war against people who hate liberty and freedom (Dennis, p. 124). Since 2001 many countries have pushed through repressive laws in the name of the war on terror. While I do not agree that liberty has been the first victim of this war, I take your point that as that great American statesman Thomas Jefferson said, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance (Dennis, p. 130).” This is not only vigilance against enemies and threats but also vigilance against the erosion of fundamental civil liberties (Dennis, p. 130). This will always be a matter of striking a balance between giving the authorities the tools that they need to defend society but not trampling on the civil liberties essential to the livelihood and vitality of those same societies (Huntington, 2006).
In the aftermath of the Taliban’s resurgence in Afghanistan, the focus on the war against terrorism has shifted from al-Qaeda to Taliban (Robert, p. 89). This is seen more as a reflection of America’s and Americans’ fundamental impatience (Robert, p. 89). Even five years into the war on terrorism, we are just beginning to accept the notion that this is indeed a “long war.” (Robert, p. 89). To prevail in this struggle there is a need to focus attention literally across the waterfront of threats, which is also exactly why this struggle is so challenging because that requires prolonged attention on multiple challenges, often geographically distant from one another (Huntington, 2006).
It was entirely appropriate in the aftermath of 9/11 to have a war on terrorism since our foremost priority was to break the back of al Qaeda’s power and ensure that it could not have the power to attack the U.S. or any other country, in the same manner, it did on 9/11( Schwabach, 2004). The U.S achieved that objective quickly, however, then it should have devised something more akin to a global counterinsurgency than sticking with the war on terrorism (Dennis, p. 130).
Counterinsurgency depends as much on diplomatic initiatives, political reform, and economic development and information operations as it does on military force (Dennis, p. 135). Yet, really until this end, the emphasis is more on military force than these other tools and it is these other tools that are just as critical to prevailing against terrorism (Dennis, p. 134).
Essentially, that the U.S. has been successful the past five years both in defending the U.S. against another terrorist attack and also in preventing al Qaeda from launching another 9/11-type attack on any other country (Schwabach, 2004). The point is the U.S cannot afford to rest on past laurels or previous successes. It faces an enormously adaptive and innovative enemy and that while we are safer, al Qaeda is continuing to try to find new ways to attack, and therefore the threat of terrorism, despite considerable progress, nonetheless, still exists (Robert, p. 90).
Works cited
Robert L. Hutchings “Terrorism and Economic Security”. Dennis Okerstrom “Peace, War, and Terrorism” p. 121-135
Hutington,S.P. The Clash of Civilizations and the remaking of the World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster 2006..
Schwabach, Aaron, “Ecocide and genocide in Iraq : international law, the Marsh Arabs, and environmental damage in non-international conflicts”, in : Colorado journal of international environmental law and policy, 15 (2004), no. 1, pp. 1-28.