Strategies to counter global terrorism attacks - Essay Example

Strategies to counter global terrorism attacks Introduction terrorism encompasses the acts of terrorism in which governments or nations engage to inflict fear and violence against their citizens or on the other states. Apparently, state terrorism does not eminently have a clear distinction with transnational terrorism. The situation exists because the term includes definitions that fail to elucidate clearly between legitimate and illegitimate use of intimidation and violence. Various states act as sponsors of state terrorism including Iran, Sudan, and Syria (Department of State 1). Notwithstanding, the Obama regime has removed Cuba from the list of terrorist countries that sponsor terrorism. Further, more states are engaging in state terrorism, a situation termed illegal by the international bodies aiming to combat terror. Cognizant of the situation, both internal and external states are inclusive in the war against state terrorism. Therefore, effective state-counterterrorism should entail associations between the society and governments to ensure state compliance with terrorism regulations. Firstly, achieving the situation entails thorough mobilization and meetings between the residents and stakeholders. Secondly, it involves training the individuals on how to recognize potential terrorists among themselves. Finally, the state needs to avail enough resources to combat terrorism. Seemingly, in the US, efforts have been diverted since the 9/11 attacks on Pentagon, and the Capitol Building in Washington, DC. Further, attacks to the World’s Trade Center Complex Towers in New York caused havoc during the wee hours of September 11. The September 11 attacks indicated sophistication, excellent coordination and aimed at the firmness of USA economy, military, and political fame. Since then, deadly attacks have followed in various states such as Mumbai in China, Beslan, and Bali in Indonesia, not forgetting Madrid, London, and Moscow in Russia. Those groups that relied on terrorism have possibly faced elimination, but new groups are emerging posting a new threat to the target states. The world still suffers severe terrorist attacks more than a decade after the 9/11 attacks in the US (Lutz and Brenda 1). The capability of the government to stop threats and violence against its citizens relies on the ability to prevent the rivals from engaging in such quandary acts (Koch and Tkach, 1). Apparently, the nature of terrorism has changed. Loosely connected groups of terrorists are mutually replacing the acts of Al Qaeda led by the famous leader Osama bin Laden. These networked organizations connect with a “global jihad” and intend to introduce changes in the world especially the Middle East. The killing of the Al Qaeda leader did not bring tremendous changes in the decline of the terrorist acts. Rather, there are numerous similar attacks observed around the world. For instance, the Breivik’s riot in Norway is one of the obvious examples indicating the increased phenomena of crime rates. Radicalization and recruitment of groups into the terrorist mafias is gaining concern because they may access weapons of mass destruction and cause heavy death tolls. Additionally, distinct concerns go to the migrant and minority alienation the world over (Lutz et al., 1). Specific strategies to counter state terrorism Response to terrorism through military force Combating state terrorism involves responses from the military forces. More often than not, realists would naturally respond to state terrorism using the powers of the military. As opposed to the realists, liberalists would consider multifaceted and comprehensive measures that entail both non-military and military strategies to combat crime. The strategies ensure that the citizens are secure from the degree of violence engaged. For example, the US response to the 9/11 attacks used a counterterrorism (CT) strategy without a single consideration to the regional organizations (ROs). The forces insisted that the ROs has feeble institutional designs, bureaucratic bottlenecks, and decision-making is dependent on the consensus rendering it slow and ineffective. These reasons notwithstanding, the current ROs such as OSCE, ASEAN, and NATO have evolved and can confidently handle such risks. Despite the insurmountable developmental and economic challenges, many of these organizations have contributed to CT’s regional cooperation and help in resources allocation to counter state terrorism. Hence, it is vital to include all able groups in the communities to help provide more information about combating the crimes. For instance, Cortright and Lopez have discerned the ROs’ significance towards the GWOT. Either they suggest the inclusion of ROs efforts holistically, globally or in the sustainable strategies that thwart terrorism (Herik and Nico, 176). Global governance perspective In order to stop state terrorism, the government needs to use the global perspective of governance. US cannot solely eliminate each terrorist organization or state terrorists that threaten its interests or state security. Consequently, it is important to engage other key partners to ensure shared burdens to achieve the common goals of security. In resolving the situation, it is pertinent to accept varying degrees of all partnerships. Essentially, the US is fully engaging her partners to ensure full range in the cooperation of CT activities. The government is keen on intelligence sharing, joint training, pursuing resilience programs in the communities and other operations to counter the radicalization of crime. In this pursuit, the US federal government is engaging its state governments and various nations that share common values to reduce the increasing states that sponsor terrorism. On the other hand, the federal government focuses on leveraging the multinational corporations to counter terrorists. The US government is drawing massive resources to the international, national, sub-regional, and regional levels to curb crime. Collaborating with these institutions such as individual states can have numerous benefits towards countering state terrorism. For example, there is an increased engagement of partners, reduced financial burdens, and enhanced the legitimacy of the CT efforts (Whitehouse 7). When the states come together and focus on combating state terrorism, it is easier to identify coherent and non-coherent states. The realization will then foster efforts to avert sponsorship of such terrorist acts. Considerable inclusion of all stakeholders will help curb the menace of state terrorism. Denying support, sponsorship, and offering sanctuary to terrorists by states In the attempt to terminate the acts of state terrorism, there should be movements that enlighten the states and communities on the effects of supporting, offering sanctuary or sponsoring terrorists. The second front of the US 2003 National Strategy to combat crime assert that, through denial of terrorists support, aid, and asylum can help to reduce the threat of state terrorism. It holds that, offering shelter, funding, and backing, the terrorists thrive, exist, plan, train, and execute their attacks. The strategy has foci on the states and various governments to achieve their obligations of combating terrorism both internally and externally. The policy also guides the US government to target its assistance towards the nations that aim to curb crime. Moreover, the methodology is concerned with the approaches the US government has to take to ensure that countries adhere to the primary objective of fighting state terrorism. Together with its allies and partners, the US government is obliged to convince the other states to deny the terrorists support and sponsorship. Fundamentally, it is of paramount importance to involve all shareholders towards the effective counterterrorism strategies. For example, the United States affirms its strategy by assuming a pragmatic and precise approach to executing antiterrorism campaigns that seek to involve all stakeholder states both locally and internationally (CIA 16). Therefore, by the use of anti-terrorism campaigns, many states and individuals can stop offering sanctuaries, sponsoring, and supporting the terrorists. Creation of a backlash against terrorists To thwart terrorism, there should be creation of backlashes to counter state terrorism. The other common and useful method of countering the menace of state terrorism is by creating a backlash against the terrorists. The process involves dynamic and vigorous campaigns across the world accompanied with messages of offensive actions. Although the terrorists only require a few instances of brutal attacks to remain in control, the method if continually conducted with a thorough involvement of the communities, the war can be won. In this context, the presence of armed conventional responses does not prove to be adequate in combating insurgent terrorism. The situation can be demoralizing to the security forces because terrorists can quickly create resentments through engineering various incidents by gunning down civilians via open crossfire in the target state. Sometimes, they can conduct attacks on soft yet sensitive targets in the bid to demonstrate that the forces cannot stop their brutal acts. It is evident that hurried response by forces to counter state terrorism may fail due to ad hoc actions. Nevertheless, overarching methodologies need enactment to thwart or at least reduce the ability of the terrorist groups from conducting massive attacks across the nations. Hence, it is vital to assess the ability of the institutions to determine their resource base and available strategies that are useful in implementing crisis management systems. Further, there is a need for unique systems of intelligence to locate the networks created by the terrorists, anticipate their planned attacks and devise competitive actions to ensure minimal attacks on the innocent civilians. For example, the creation of real-time intelligence existing within the communities can to a larger extent help to combat state terrorist attacks. The system helps to ward off the attacks, keep the terrorist attacks off their balance, interfere with their plans and impair their communication and control methods. On the other hand, while managing local terrorism, state terrorism gains disambiguation. Hence, the creation of meaningful cooperation between the forces and law enforcement systems can prove healthy environments for the nations involved. In achieving this situation, the counterterrorist police forces should not remain undermined by any political, religious, and ethnic factors (Raza, 15). Conclusion State terrorism is not merely a one-state issue but rather a universal threat to all the governments. In this course, all states, both local and international need to cooperate towards the elimination of this vice. Hence, the numerous strategies offered should receive vigilance to ensure protection of citizens and the sole states. State terrorists conduct planned, well-coordinated and often heavily funded attacks. Therefore, to eliminate or reduce largely the terrorist attacks, there is a need to involve the communities who will monitor the terrorist characteristics within their region of residence. In some cases, communities may have information concerning the brutal attackers but lack a channel of communication to the concerned security officers. It is paramount to develop strategies that ensure collaborations between the various security agencies and the civilians. The situation will eliminate chances of some communities offering sanctuary to the terrorists leading to the subjugation of their efforts. Indeed, the US government should maintain vigilance of the state terrorism meted towards the Americans through vivid and open state counterterrorism strategies that utilize the efforts of the locals and shareholders states. The inclusion of other states in the bid to combat state terrorism ensures a free will of communication regarding the threats given to target states. For example, Iran must be under watch over its nuclear preparations to curb any attacks of terrorism that might be underway. Works Cited Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). National Strategy for combating terrorism. 2003. Web. April 26, 2013. Accessed from https://www.cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/Counter_Terrorism_Strategy.pdf Herik, and Nico Schrijver. Counter-terrorism strategies in a fragmented international legal order: meeting the challenges. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Print. Koch, M., and Tkach, B. “Deterring or Mobilizing? The Influence of Government Partisanship and Force on the Frequency, Lethality and Suicide Attacks of Terror Events”. Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy, 18. 2(2012): 1. Print. Lutz, James M., and Brenda J. Lutz. Global terrorism. London New York: Routledge, 2013. Print. Raza, M M. Confronting terrorism. New Delhi: Penguin Viking, 2009. Print. WhiteHouse Government. National Strategy for counterterrorism. June 8, 2011. Web. April 26, 2015. Web. Accessed from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/counterterrorism_strategy.pdf Department of State. State Sponsors of Terrorism. 2015. Web. April 30, 2015. Accessed from http://www.state.gov/j/ct/list/c14151.htm Read More