Are we winning the war on terrorism? There are two different views on how we should deal with terrorism in the long term. The first view being that we should destroy everything and everyone in that terrorist group or anyone working with them. The second view being that we should eliminate the root causes of terrorism on a global level. Even if you can decide on which view to choose, how do know if you are winning the war or not? Is it how many terrorist attacks have arisen since 9/11 or do you go by the body count theirs verses ours? We are presented with two arguments one saying yes we are winning the war on terrorism. The second being no, we are not winning the war. I will start with Douglas J. Feith, who believes we are winning the war on terrorism. Then I will summarize John Gershman's argument.
Feith believes the terrorist who attacked us on 9/11 took advantage of Americas open nature. Just because they attacked us we should not let that make us become a closed nature society, and make us go on the defensive. We do not have the ability to stop all terrorist attacks. So, Feith agrees with the Presidents decision to go on the offensive and try to attack the terrorists on their own land and not ours. Feith, says that the Presidents three part strategy is a good one and we should continue with this strategy. Part one of the strategy is that we must disrupt and destroy the terrorists infrastructure. We have been doing this by capturing some of al-Quidas top advisors, and by interrupting the finances. The second part of the strategy is to make terrorism look like a bad thing to do. We have done this by endorsing the Iraqi government to take control of their country, and fight against terrorist in their own country. The third part is to secure American soil. This has been done by starting the Department of Homeland Security. They have also made it so that intelligence flows easier between countries that we allied with. Feith also says that weapons of mass...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document