The main concern of the paper is to identify and answer the question: Has the ‘War on Terror’ made the American people safer? The researcher of this essay aims to pay special attention to the arguments for and against the ‘War on Terror’…
Download file to see previous pages...
The paper tells that the arguments for and against the ‘War on Terror’ has generally made the American citizens safer because 1. Apart from certain legitimacy doubts, the US military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are credited with moving the hostilities into enemy’s territory. 2. The drone attacks used by CIA and the US military, targeting terrorist leaders, groups and safe havens, have made terrorists more anxious about their safety, rather than plotting acts of terror. 3. The elimination of key al-Qaida leaders, most notably Osama bin Laden, has allowed the US an opportunity to “disrupt, dismantle, and ultimately defeat al-Qaida”. 4. The efforts to prevent terrorists from entering the United States and operating freely inside the US borders, as well as the massive investments in aerospace control, aviation security, and screening, and maritime and border security, considerably minimized the risk of terrorist actions. 5. Community engagement against Islamist-inspired radicalization and recruitment, along with information sharing among the law enforcement organizations, deprive terrorists of their financial support and raw recruits. The ‘War on Terror’ has failed to make Americans safer because 1. Many homeland security measures have been designed to deal with large threats, whereas considerably destructive terrorist acts can be perpetrated by a small group or even a single individual. 2. The terrorist targets’ selection is quite often a random process, rather than a product of grand planning, which makes efforts to determine terrorists’ intent a bit problematic. 3. Protection measures have their negative effects, including direct costs, negative economic impact, inconvenience, fear and reduction of liberties. The reasoning behind the arguments for and against There are many speculations about the real impact the US military campaigns, most notably in Afghanistan, had on terrorist networks such as al-Qaida and its affiliates and adherents, and their capabilities to target the territory of the United States. The opponents of the Bush administration’s aggressive policy aimed at disrupting and degrading al-Qaida and its affiliates argue that the use of US military overseas did very little, if anything, to protect the American people at home. Their reasoning is broadly based on the assumptions that violence, more often than not, produces violence, and that pursuing terrorists is not the armed forces’ job. To a degree or another, such reasoning may have its merits because the civil casualties alongside the civilian property and infrastructure destruction caused by the American army strikes in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as by the CIA’s undeclared drone war in Pakistan, could be hardly justified.
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
The “War on Terror” is a blanket cause that allows the United States to intervene on any activities it considers to be terrorism. The war is fighting a faceless enemy, therefore it could be anyone. President Obama has chosen to withdrawal troops as well as focus on humanitarian aid.
George W. Bush and his supporters insist on the importance of fighting terror with war. Bush decided to deploy military force, uphold democracy in the Middle East. Bush offered liberal wartime powers to the commander in chief. Critics of Bush, however, questioned the usefulness of ‘war on terror’.
This was the day America would never forget and forgive. America realized the gravity of terrorism and the situation for the first time what most nations face on daily basis worldwide. It was also not a welcome fact that post 9/11 we discovered that the terrorist outfits which attacked us were actually trained by us.
US foreign policy has been drifting away from multilateral institutions policy to unilateral policy. This is inspite of Clinton’s call for engagement with the international community. The depth of Clinton’s downfall in foreign policy was demonstrated by the senate’s rejection of Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which was meant to control arms.
The procedure of trying to influence the democracy of the second country is usually marked with challenges. For a foreign nation to gain dominance in another sovereign state and influence the modes of governance in place, resistance from the host nation would be inevitable.
Furthermore, this question is very broad in the sense that post-war policy addressed many issues like monetary and fiscal, foreign, social, and more. To delimit the topic for better focus and grasp, the policy review centres on the British Nationality Act 1948 (BNA) and the Education Act 1944 (EA) structured into brief introduction, purpose, perspectives, impact, and policy evaluation.
The war on terror is going on thereby making the political grounds of the country vulnerable day by day and making more and more people psychologically weak. It seems as if both, 'war' and 'war on terror' has given nothing to the people but fear and anxiety to survive.
The problem civilizations continue to encounter is constant conflict, ambition and politically induced warfare that many times resulted in wars. In the 20th century World War I, World War II and Vietnam were disastrous events whose
Terrorism can be regional as well as global. Nowadays terrorism has achieved an international dimension, particularly after the September 11 attacks on America. A 1988 study by the US army found more than 100
Due to this key position in the war scenario, the magnitude of losses, as compared to other participating nations of the world, was far greater for the US.
The writer is of the opinion that the outcomes of
1 Pages(250 words)Case Study
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Research Paper on topic Has the War on Terror made the American people more safe for FREE!