The war on terrorism is discussed as one of the most important and controversial questions concerning the global peace and development. The questions involve a lot of ethical and political issues which need the immediate solution because terrorist attacks become more frequent and crueler.
Terrorism is often defined as the crime against humanity, the actions of terrorists are unpredictable, and terrorist attacks cause deaths of thousands of innocent people globally every year.
The war on terrorism developed by the global organizations and by the US administration is directed toward defending the civil population from the cruelty of terrorists and toward weakening the forces of terrorist leading to the absolute destruction of terroristic organizations.
However, the US politicians can face the significant problem while choosing the approach to fight. Following the liberal visions, many politicians along with Barack Obama are inclined to focus on the war on terrorism which is not against the abstract evil, but against the concrete organizations and their goals.
Although the threat of terroristic actions against the civil population can be discussed as the terrifying reality today, the war on terrorism should not be ‘blind’ and based on extremes and active aggressive actions against immigrants, Muslims, or representatives of the radical movements in the United States because the war on terrorism is the conflict of only political, military, and social organizations’ visions.
The war on terrorism cannot be discussed as the war between the good and evil which end will result in the victory of one of the sides. Terroristic organizations have definite goals according to which their activities are organized. These goals are based on political and military aspects as well as social questions.
That is why, the war on terrorism should also depend on these factors, preventing events when the civil population can suffer from aggressive actions and misbalanced strategies of the anti-terror organizations.
The terroristic attack at the Boston Marathon provoked the intensification and development of the further discussion associated with the war on terrorism and methods used by the US authorities to prevent the worsening of the situation.
Following the blasts at the Boston Marathon, President Obama said that they would find the persons responsible for the attack and would focus on the reasons for the terroristic attacks (Eligon and Cooper). Later, the authorities focused on two suspects, the Tsarnaev brothers.
The persons responsible for the attacks were found, but causes for the cruel actions against the public remain the key questions which are not answered adequately as any other similar questions associated with the terrorist attacks (Schmitt et al.).
As a result, the waves of suspicion are coming again, leading to a lot of extreme actions and violating the privacy rights.
In spite of the fact the war on terrorism is the priority of not only the US administration but also of the global community, the approaches to win the war should be chosen according to the principles of balance and justice. The war cannot be just because of its nature.
The war on terrorism can follow the principles of justice if it is directed toward preventing terroristic actions rather than toward fighting terrorists as a result of military actions.
On the one hand, the war on terrorism is the political and military problem that is why the rules of warfare can be used effectively. On the other hand, a lot of the civil people can become victims of the military actions and specific anti-terror strategies. Thus, the balanced measures to prevent terroristic acts should be developed.
Nevertheless, there is one more challenge associated with the increased social and governmental suspicion. The war on terrorism should not become the cause for limiting the foreign and immigration polices.
The threat of acts of terrorism should no be discussed as the reason for discriminating Muslims or violating privacy rights and civil liberties.
Such actions as the implementation of cameras in the public places or limitations in relation to immigration and foreign policies should be discussed publicly with the help of polls and referendums (Schmitt et al.).
It is rather difficult to develop the effective policy in relation to the war on terrorism because terrorists are not oriented to the peaceful regulation of the conflict. Thus, millions of people are at risk of becoming victims of the terrorist act every day.
Paying more attention to suspicious persons and behaviours, authorities are inclined to prevent cruelty and mass killings of the civil population. However, it is important to control the intrusion into the private aspects of the people’s life.
Today, many Americans agree with the balanced approaches followed by President Obama and Democratic Party in regulating the problems of terrorism.
Although the question is rather controversial, and it is a challenge to assess this or that approach to overcoming the problem of the war on terrorism, it is important to concentrate on the clear idea that the war on terrorism should be developed, but with references to the effective methods.
The problem can be overcome if the situation of begging the question in the governmental discussions can be regulated appropriately (Kahane and Cavender 59). The other issue is the inconsistent visions of politicians in relation to the war on terrorism and approaches to develop the war.
Thus, the strategy can be discussed as effective when politicians avoid their ‘blowing with the wind’, and the main state strategy is followed directly (Kahane and Cavender 55).
Organization and consistence are the key factors in coping with the problematic questions. Security and peace can be achieved with the help of controlled and organized authorities’ actions and strategies.
As a result, there are two rather opposite approaches to developing the war on terrorism. The supporters of the idea of active actions concentrate on effective military strategies and the persecution of Muslims.
The followers of more peaceful methods discuss the ideas of decreasing the public privacy and limiting the immigration of Muslims in the USA. Two approaches can be discussed as rather provocative and cannot guarantee the positive results in the war on terrorism.
Following this or that strategy, it is possible to intensify the conflict and provoke new attacks because civil liberties of many people can be violated. That is why, politicians should focus on the most balanced policy against terrorists which can protect the civil public and become the real threat for terrorists.
To contribute to the effective results, the actions oriented to tokenism should be avoided.
The combination of the mentioned approaches with references to the idea of the population’s protection and focus on civil rights and liberties can be used to regulate the conflict at the stage of prevention or at the military stage without threatening thousands of people.
Works Cited
Eligon, John, and Michael Cooper. Blasts at Boston Marathon Kill 3 and Injure 100. 2013. Web.
Kahane, Howard, and Nancy Cavender. Logic And Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use Of Reason In Everyday Life. USA: Cengage Learning, 2006. Print.
Schmitt, Eric, Mark Mazzetti, Michael Schmidt, and Scott Shane. Boston Plotters Said to Initially Target July 4 for Attack. 2013. Web.