Answers to Terror
ENG 122 English Composition II
14 July 2014
Terrorism is defined as the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Unfortunately, when many people hear the term terrorism, they think of 9-11 and the horrific events of that day. That reason is why most individuals think that military force is the most logical answer to snuffing out terrorists. One of the largest problems with that course of action is the loss of human life associated with it. Unfortunately that may not be the largest problem associated with terrorism. The fact of the matter is that it will never go away. What we need to ask ourselves as a society is how we can combat terror. Some solutions could be to increase the ways we deter terroristic ideas, or possibly reach into the terrorist’s pockets and make their endeavors too expensive for them. Regardless of what avenue we as a society take, it seems as if precision strikes and military power may be the best way to wipe out terrorism; in reality there are other and less deadly ways of dealing with the issue that is terrorism. Many soldiers enjoy the idea of heading overseas to fight the forces behind terrorism, but after four combat tours I am ready to find other ways to deal with the problem. Nigel Dower (2002) suggested that there are four possible ways to rid the world of terrorism; destroy terrorists, bring all terrorists to trial, freezing their assets, and tackle the causes that give rise to terrorism (pg. 3). War is an answer to terrorism, but it is definitely inappropriate by society’s standards (Dower, 2002). I believe that Dower is absolutely correct. Is the war we have been fighting for years actually a war? The definition of war is a state of armed conflict between different nations or states. So is it justifiable to say that we are conducting a war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan when we are actually targeting certain radical groups in those countries. I believe we are focusing on two areas that Dower suggests; destroying the terrorists, and eliminating the root cause of terrorism. In deploying troops to third world countries that support terrorism, we saw that terrorists hid behind a wall of fear they had created in the civilians. Treating the people of those countries with dignity and respect erased the fear that terrorists had instilled in them. It is referred to as “winning the hearts and minds”. The fact that terrorism can be settled without bloodshed and death shows that society has evolved beyond its primitive ways. If an individual has a bad spending habit, what do you do to eliminate it? Simple; you limit or take away their money. Many individuals believe the same can be done with terrorism. Without knowing it corporations such as banks and legal entities are often complicit in international terrorism as aiders or abettors (Bachmann, 2012). If governments were to freeze bank accounts to conduct investigations, how should those accounts be targeted? Dower (2002) suggests that a fine balance should be struck to keep innocent individuals with middle eastern backgrounds from being accused (pg. 4). So does one just keep the terrorists from spending money for a couple months and this stop the problem altogether? I do not think so. According to Bachmann (2012), in his article that instead of taking away the money, governments would use anti-terrorism styled litigation to have the desired effect (pg. 4). This style of litigation might cause companies to be a little more careful with their finances. If a company takes the time to research the way that money is being used on investment opportunities, it may lead to terrorist fronts being abolished. So in theory, terrorism could be brought to an end if the forces behind its financing were forced to be held more accountable. What if preventive measures made it utterly impossible to conduct a terrorist threat? If it was impossible to hijack a plane,...
References: Ahmed, Azam and Rosenberg, Matthew. (2014, January 19). The Boston Globe. Retrieved from http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2014/01/19/taliban-call-attack-retaliation-for-strike-that-killed-civilians/ya2ZkhmDzr1szTc2PKvRtN/story.html
Bachmann, Sascha-Dominik. (2012, August) “Bankrupting Terrorism: The Role of US Anti-terrorism Litigation in the Prevention of Terrorism and Other Hybrid Threats: A Legal Assessment and Outlook.” Liverpool Law Review. Vol. 33 Issue 2, p91-109. 19p. Retrieved from Ashford Online Library.
Dalziel, Natalie. (2014, May/June) “Drone strikes: ethics and strategy.” New Zealand International Review. Vol. 39 Issue 3, p2-6. Retrieved from Ashford Online Library.
Dower, Nigel. (2002) “Against war as a response to terrorism.” PHILOSOPHY & GEOGRAPHY, VOL. 5, NO. 1. Retrieved from Ashford Online Library.
Flint, Colin and Falah, Ghazi-Walid. (2004) “How the United States justified its war on terrorism: prime morality and the construction of a ‘just war’”. Third World Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 8, pp.1379-1399. Retrieved from Ashford Online Library.
Frey, Bruno S. (2010) “Federalism as an Effective Antidote to Terrorism.” Review of Law and Economics. Retrieved from Ashford Online Library.
HolocaustNickerson, Raymond S. (2011, September) “Roles of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Meeting The Challenge of Terrorism.” American Psychologist. Retrieved from Ashford Online Library.
Eijkman, Q.A.M. and Weggemans, D. (2011, November)” Visual surveillance and the prevention of terrorism: What about the checks and balances?” International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 143-150. Retrieved from Ashford Online Library.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document