Terrorism: A Major International Threat
Terrorism is a major international issue in today's global society. Many states are affected, whether indirectly or directly. While most of those states oppose terrorism, others excuse or even support active, ruthless terrorism and terrorist groups. While there is no universal agreement on a definition, Terrorism, defined by the U.S. State Department, has to contain four elements. The first element is that there must be a threat or an act of violence. Next is that there must be a political objective. One must have a political motive for the act to be considered terrorism. The third is that violence and the threat of violence is an attack on civilians making civilians the main target. Lastly, it is committed by a supporting state or states of terrorism. One of the objectives of terrorism is to make the terrorist's views heard or seen. This can likely be expressed through the crazed media that weighs in on every story. The media is a brilliant way for the terrorists to express their reasoning and demands immediately following an attack. The U.S. has a very strict policy concerning terrorism and our country will not negotiate with terrorists or give in to any sort of demands. The U.S. does everything in their power to bring terrorists to justice after they commit crimes and aim to isolate terrorist supporting states, such as Iraq, from the rest of the world and attempt to form counter terrorism
In ISIS Is Not a Terrorist Group, Cronin uses the basic argument that ISIS is not a terrorist group because they are large in size and have a solid infrastructure with an army. While she compares the acts of Al Qaeda and ISIS, she says they are not the same. She states that “…ISIS is not al Qaeda. It is not an outgrowth or a part of the older radical Islamist organization, nor does it represent the next phase in its evolution.” But soon contradicts her statement by saying that “ISIS is its successor. ISIS represents the post al Qaeda jihadist threat.” The author states that the main differences in ISIS and Al Qaeda are in their history. Not in motive or ways of combating an attack, but in the history of the two groups. Every attack ISIS has claimed has fit the definition of an act of terror. The reason I personally see ISIS as a terrorist group is even though they have the capability to use their army in domestic disputes they still use terroristic strategies.
In Six Rather Unusual Propositions about Terrorism, John Mueller argues some opinions that would seem controversial to most. For example, his first argument is that “Terrorism generally has only limited direct effects.” While this is true to some extent for he argues the fact that not many people outside of the attack are effected for some attacks, but for others, astonishing amounts of people are impacted by a single attack. For example, the 9/11 attack killed and injured thousands of civilians and that attack alone changed the ways Americans live today. He includes information that more Americans are killed by automobile accidents and civil wars than terrorism to make it seem as if terrorism isn’t as big of an issue but just because terrorism kills less than these other examples does not mean that it is not a problem.
Another example Mueller uses that is that “The Terrorism Industry Is a Major Part of the Terrorism Problem.” I agree with the argument that the author is portraying in this subsection because I think too that the terrorist is looking to instill fear in the victims to get a reaction out of them and that’s partially what fuels them. “The most common reaction to terrorism is the stoking of fear and the encouragement of overreaction by members of what might be called the ‘‘terrorism industry…’’
In Trump and Terrorism, the authors argue that even if the U.S. were to defeat ISIS successfully, the war on terrorism would still not be over because of other terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda are still active. They also state that President Trump is stuck on what to do in these situations as the rise and exclaim that he “…must, therefore, pick the best of a bad lot. Despite his campaign rhetoric, the least worst choice would be an approach close to the medium-footprint strategy being used to defeat ISIS today: an aggressive campaign encompassing air strikes, drone attacks, special operations raids, and small deployments of regular ground troops in response to specific threats, all in support of efforts by regional U.S. partners.”They argue that this is not a perfect solution because there will be no decisive winner, but I do agree with the argument stated that this may be the only way to deliver security to the people of our democracy. Some argue to do nothing after an attack while others argue to use a more powerful approach, but what is the “correct” thing to do? Well, that is to be determined at the time of an attack because they are all different and need to be handled different ways.
While these articles all differ in many ways, I think the authors did a good job of executing their argument. Although I didn’t agree with some of the views they argued, others I did. It was very interesting to see how scholars viewed this issue and their propositions for eliminating or minimizing it as well. Overall, I don’t think that the U.S. will be ending the war on terrorism any time soon because I don’t think it would be worth the resources and soldiers lost for the number of terrorist attacks that actually happen. I do believe however that the U.S. is doing everything in their power to keep its people secure.