Combating terrorism is an operation that demands strategic attention and direct accountability in order to enhance national and global security. It is notable that terrorism has become a global issue that has been perceived as a threat to international security and relations. In this case, the United States as a world super power has risen to wage war on terror groups in order to enhance both national and global security.
Currently, the US administration has adopted a policy of military installations all over the world in order to foster its national security as well as safeguard is territorial integrity. Nevertheless, this policy has proved to very costly and to some extent; measures taken have increased the vulnerability of acts of terror than ever before. In order to bring about positive change in the management of international peace and security, it is recommended that better polices should be applied by its Administrators to fight terrorism.
These policies include use of military forces, detaining as well as prosecution of terror suspects. Needless to say, the three polices have vivid pros and cons as they will be addressed in this policy report. However, it is crucial to mention that each of the policies identified is successful in its own way.
In line with this, one of the merits that is common in the policies that have been adopted so far is the centralized legal authority that has endeavored to make the new rules and regulations more effective. Nevertheless, it is imperative to note that war on terror needs a multidisciplinary approach in order to be successful.
In this case, the policies must be applied concomitantly, a factor that will largely assist in covering up the impending weaknesses. Besides this, all the above three polices of arresting and prosecuting terror suspects have been highly recommended. This is due to the fact that the policies have been proven to be very effective in destabilizing, disrupting and demoralizing terror groups that are both emerging and also existed for long.
It is imperative to note that the topic on war against terror is important since it enhances global understanding, appreciation as well as insurgency against such acts (Romaniuk 2012, p. 151). For instance, the United States of America is one of the global powers that has a been major commentator of strategies and policies meant to suppress terrorism and all acts or intentions related to the vice.
It is apparent that the US is the only world super power whose foreign policy needs to be changed in order to make its military power less vulnerable to terrorism. As a matter of fact, the US administration has adopted myriads of strategic policies and responsibilities in order to enhance national and global security.
Research has revealed that terror acts have posed threat not just to the US security but also at the global level. Needless to say, Murray (2011, p. 84) asserts that the previous administration under President George Bush was largely counterproductive in fighting terror acts both nationally and globally. Some political analysts argue that the use of open force ideology the Republican government under President George Bush was not fruitful at all in yielding the much expected results in the fight against acts of terror.
Nevertheless, it is worth to note that terrorism is very dynamic and there is need to take a leap of imagination in order to come up with policies that will help to end terrorism (Murray 2011, p. 84). It is against this backdrop that this policy paper intends to address current and viable polices that can be employed by the US government in the war on terror.
Background of the current situation (current policy)
From a careful review of literature, it is imperative to note that the contemporary policies used to fight terror have been perceived as counterproductive (Swain 2012, p 237). In this case, instead of suppressing terror acts, these policies tend to aggregate the situation at hand.
Therefore, it is essential to note that there are three essential polices that can be used by the US government in the war against terrorism. In a nutshell, disaggregation approach is a crucial framework that can be used as a legal strategy in US to fight terrorism. In any case, this is one of the grand strategies that the US authority has employed for some decades now to break ties between local and global players who are associated with terrorism.
Orr (2012, p.93) reiterates that this strategy is meant to separate terror groups and make them turn against each other; a factor that makes it easy to monitor as well as curb their operations. From this strategy, one can derive three important policies that can be used by the US administrators in the war against terror.
To begin with, one of the most effective polices entails the approach whereby the US government can seek methods of detaining terror suspects once they have pleaded guilty (Homolar 2011, p. 705). Moreover, another policy that has been perceived to be effective is the prosecution of terror criminals in state departments.
Additionally, the policy on the use of military force is effective in suppressing various terror groups that are spread across the globe. In order to understand the rationale and effectiveness of these polices in curbing terrorism, it is important to discuss each one of them in details.
Option 1: current policy of War on Terror
Detaining terror suspects in the countries where they are captured is an effective policy since it will help in dispersing and curtailing any form of cooperation by various terror groups. Notably, geographical distance makes it quite cumbersome for terror gangs to spearhead local insurgency (Romaniuk 2012, p. 152).
Needless to say, there should be strict domestic and global rules that can be followed to ensure that this policy does not result into political unrest at some point. For instance, certain countries may counteract on realizing that their citizens who have been held as suspects have been detained in foreign countries. In this case, this will ensure that the attitude of the public and perception is not affected by the policy.
Nevertheless, this policy has some shortcomings since it becomes quite difficult to detain suspects in countries that are unstable such as Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen (Morris & Crank 2011, p. 219). Therefore, this prompts for centralized locations that have the potential to withhold such suspects from connecting with other terror groups.
It is worth to note that the policy of detaining terrorists in countries where they have been arrested can provide an ample ground to aggravate vicious terror acts and thereby causing more harm than good (Tosini 2012, p. 115). In this case, the US government should device legal frameworks and strategies that can be used to determine centralized locations where suspected terrorists can be detained as they await being prosecuted.
In addition to this, research has revealed that detaining terror suspects on vulnerable regions has adverse effects towards fighting acts of terror. For instance, numerous countries that have been perceived as failed states counteract against the policy and this makes it hard to achieve positive results. Needless to say, this is a successful option of war on terror even though it can be made effective when reinforced by other policies in addition to political will by the affected countries to arrest and detain terror suspects.
The second option
According to Swain (2012, p. 237), prosecuting terror suspect is one of the option polices that can help to end terrorism. One of the merits of this policy is that it helps to prevent terror groups from expanding. For instance, when chief suspects are arrested and prosecuted, it largely demoralizes the low-ranking members and often breaks the terror networks.
Research has revealed that arresting and prosecuting chief suspects disrupts local and global terrorist operations making it impossible to commit predicate crimes. Nevertheless, Romaniuk (2012, p. 152) argues that one of the demerits of this policy is that it requires the administrators to have sophisticated skills of detecting and arresting terror suspects. This is due to the fact that terrorists often have dynamic skills that are easy to replace with new ones.
In this case, it is probable that the administrators will only be able to arrest and prosecute low-level members leaving behind chief organizers of terror acts. Despite the fact that this policy might be faced by numerous challenges, is definite that it is effective in fighting terror acts.
This is due to the fact that it might not wholly help to eradicate terrorism but will highly contribute to decimating the vice (Tosini 2012, p.115). It is imperative to mention that the policy has been amended to boost its effectiveness whereby it targets not merely terror suspects but also those individuals or governments and organizations that fund terrorist activities. The heavy support that terrorists receive mainly through monetary funding is indeed a great threat towards fighting the vice.
The third Option
In spite of the above options of fighting terror, the US authority should legalize the policy of using military force in countering terrorism. In a more succinct manner, the US administration should use legal authority to wage war against organizations, states and individuals who support terror groups (McCrisken 2011, p. 781).
It is essential to note that capturing and fighting suspects will not be effective if the policy does not target to paralyze radical clerics who are responsible for training and recruiting terror groups (Tosini 2012, p. 115). From a careful review of history, the US military has waged war against terror in Iran and Afghanistan but this has been more of a losing strategy since the army targets suspects leaving behind the main protagonists (Berkowitz 2012, p.104).
Nonetheless, use of military force in terror prone countries will help to disrupt and down-size insurgent networks of terrorism. Needless to say, this policy has proved to be successful in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq which have been viable breeding grounds for terrorism (Swain 2012, p 237).
Nevertheless, it is imperative to take note that this policy can cause deadlier effects especially in a case whereby the terror groups decide to avenge in terms of waging war to the opponents. This has been witnessed in Iraq where terror groups counterattack the US army (Orr 2012, p.93).
Historical scholars criticize this policy since they claim that it targets to treat the symptoms rather than the cause of acts of terror. In addition to this, this policy can cause catastrophic effects such as mass destruction as it has been witnessed in North Korea and Iran (Anderson 2011, p. 216). In line with this, it has been noted that the public in US has been pessimistic on the military force policy due to the fact that it is expensive and that the operation claims treasure and lives of innocent people.
Essentially, this policy is effective especially when there exists an ample data base that can be used to track down and fight terror groups and their associates (Aldrich 2009, p. 122). From a theoretical perspective, the option is successful since it has been used previously in terror prone countries and positive outcomes have been realized.
Which policy option do you recommend?
According to Orr (2012, p.93), war on terror requires the US administrators to use numerous polices to counter both local and global operations. Needless to say, the identified policies call for myriads of legal frameworks in order to achieve positive results. One of the most effective options of fighting terrorism involves the use of wide ranging authority to arrest and prosecute terror suspects (Buffton 2011, p. 116).
In addition, this policy will help to curb local and global terror groups who are responsible for causing insurgency. Moreover, in order to promote long-term interests, the US administrators should use sophisticated strategies to ensure that individuals who are responsible for funding terror groups get prosecuted under legal justification of the rule of law (Anderson 2011, p. 216).
Aldrich, J 2009, “US-European Intelligence Co-operation to Counter-Terrorism: Low Politics and Compulsion.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, vol. 11 no. 1, pp.122-139.
Anderson, B 2011, “Facing the Future Enemy: US Counterinsurgency Doctrine and the Pre-insurgent.” Theory, Culture & Society, vol. 28 no. 8, pp.216-219.
Berkowitz, P 2012, “Shawcross on Terror ,” Policy Review, vol. 1 no. 171, pp.103-109.
Buffton, D 2011, “War on terror, inc.: corporate profiteering from the politics of fear.International.” Journal on World Peace, vol. 28 no. 3, pp.115-118.
Homolar, A 2011, “Rebels without a conscience: The evolution of the rogue states narrative in US security policy.” European Journal of International Relations, vol. 17 no. 4, pp.705-711.
McCrisken, T 2011, “Ten years on: Obama’s war on terrorism in rhetoric and practice. International Affairs, vol. 87 no. 4, pp.781-801.
Morris, T. & Crank, J 2011, “Toward The phenomenology of Terrorism.” Implications for research and policy, vol. 26 no. 3, pp. 219-228.
Murray, N 2011, “Obama and the global war on terror.” Race & Class, vol. 53 no. 2, pp.84-86.
Orr, A 2012, “Terrorism: A Philosophical Discourse.” Journal of Applied Security Research, vol. 7 no.1, pp. 93-98.
Romaniuk, S 2012, “Slaying the Dragon: Combating Al-Qaeda and the Threat of Militant Islam.” Journal of Politics and Law, vol. 5 no. 1, pp.151-166.
Swain, R 2012, “U.S. Army Doctrine From the American Revolution to the War on Terror.” The Journal of Military History, vol. 76 no. 1, pp. 237-242.
Tosini, D 2012, “The autonomy of law in the war on terror: A contribution from social systems theory.” International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, vol. 40 no. 2 pp.115-118.