Terrorism is one of the chief
security threats to the United States today and will always remain part of the
international realm, unless the United States begins to create a new paradigm
to oppose this growing threat.The Glennon and Rodin readings both
address issues that are hindering the war against terrorism and a way in which
we can go about solving them. The issue that Rodin brings up is how there is no
clear definition of terrorism. Therefore, without a “clear and coherent
understanding” we cannot develop a suitable response or tactic to fighting the
terrorist. With a proper definition of terrorism and acts of terrorism, I
believe that it will be easier to develop proper guidelines and strategies to deter
these acts of terror. If the United States and other countries continue to define
terrorism so vaguely, almost any incident could be considered terrorism and therefore
it would be next to impossible to address all of these acts of terrorism. By narrowing the scope of what should and
shouldn’t be defined as terrorism, it would allow for the United States to
draft a proper approach to waging a war on terrorism as Glennon advocates in
his reading.
Since there is currently no clear
definition of terrorism as discussed in the Rodin reading, it is even harder to
devise a proper method to successfully deal with terrorism. As Glennon states
in his reading, the unclear definition of terrorism also plays a role in how
terrorism is not pertinent to the United States’ traditional frameworks of
crime and war, even though the United States consistently tries to treat
terrorism as such. I agree with Glennon that in order to properly prevent and
control terrorism the United States needs to adapt to the changes in acts of
terrorism, especially those of Al-Qaeda. This idea is similar to the ones of
Machiavelli, in which he states that in order for a state to be successful in
dealing with threats, a prince must be flexible and adapt to every situation
differently, for it is not good to do one thing at all times.
Since Al-Qaeda seems to be the main
terrorist threat to not only the United States, but the Western world as well, the
United States government needs to realize that “controlling terrorism while
preserving freedom is also about making sensible tradeoffs” (Glennon, 144). This
means that while the United States may want to tackle the war on terrorism by
itself, it may be more beneficial to cooperate with other nations, whether they
are allies or non-allies. This collaboration with other countries is no easy
task since all countries have different policies and approaches to tackling the
war on terrorism. But if the United States were willing to sacrifice some of
their policies in order to reach an agreement with other nations to
successfully tackle terrorism together, this new paradigm would allow for a
higher probability of the deterring terrorism. Until the issues that are
hindering the war on terrorism are addressed, I do not believe that the United
States can successfully counteract acts of terrorism, and the threat that
terrorism poses on this nation will just continue to escalate.
you bring up cooperation. Are there any countries that you would not recommend that we cooperate with? One of the critiques of the War on Terror is that we have cooperated with Pakistan (esp. when Gen. Musharraf was in charge) and Uzbekistan, two countries whose regimes we tend to find despicable.
ReplyDeleteI think that although we may not agree or find some regimes despicable, in order to cooperate with other nations we cannot discriminate based on our opinions. With that said, I believe that we cannot bring in morality and personal opinions when dealing with terrorists and cooperating with other countries. As William says below, "if we can find utility from working with an unfavorable regime" then why shouldn't we? If we have a common goal and are working to oppose a growing threat, I believe that we need to risk damaging our reputation for the common good, similar to the idea of if the end justify the means. While we may not enjoy working with these unfavorable regimes, it is important to remember that tradeoffs are necessary in all situations, and in the war of terror, I believe that more sacrifices and tradeoffs are necessary to deem this war as successful.
DeleteCooperation can be useful if it brings about positive means without entangling our interests. If we can find utility from working with an unfavorable regime then there isn't much reason to not, unless it would mean damaging our international reputation.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the statement that the U.S. should cooperate with both allies and non-allies in order to fight the "War on Terror". Supporting corrupt and criminal regimes is what the U.S. has done historically in order to achieve a bigger political objective, and this has resulted in it becoming complicit in all sorts of conflicts with grave repercussions. For instance, we can consider the example of how the U.S. backed the cruel regime of Saddam Hussein in the 1980's and 1990's in order to destabilize Iran and then ended up invading Iraq some 20 years after that under all sorts of pretexts, while Iran remained an ever-growing threat. The preceding example clearly illustrates how this type of foreign policy can be destructive. Furthermore, it is arguable that non-allies within the Middle East will actually prove helpful to the fight on terror; they may attempt to gauge support from the U.S. while also cooperating with terrorist organizations, actually elevating security risks and jeopardizing the cause.
ReplyDelete