CENTCOM's Approach

Foreign and domestic policies are not linear, rather the policies are connected in a circle, with each policy reinforcing the values of another. Domestic American terrorism in the prison and detention systems and governmental reforms are influenced by the mobilization and ethnocentrism abroad. The militarization internationally is justified by the domestic handling of the same cultural issues within the United State borders. The United States has strangely used a near Catch-22 to handle dilemmas. The United States has allowed perspective to become reality, whether with oneself or regarding issues abroad, specifically in the Middle East. Terrorism is the use or threat of fear for political or economical gain. An internal characteristic of terrorism is how dependent it is of perspective, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. To understand “terrorism,” a focus must be applied to the history, what drove an organization to commit such acts. Respectively, the Middle East has been a hotbed for the key word “terrorism,” especially because of 9/11. Subsequently, Muslims have been stigmatized by the United States as terrorists. The consequences spawned because of 9/11 require a look to the past to understand the present.

The United States from the Cold War and into the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) continues to face challenges in translating military might into political desires due to its obsession with raising an army, electing politicians and assembling a diplomatic corp that continue to gravitate towards State-to-State engagements that if not rectified could lead to substantial delays in fighting terrorism and non-terrorist adversaries or worse total failure of the United States Military’s ability to properly carry out it’s politicians objectives due to being blindsided.

The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by the Navy War College or the Department of the Navy

So far, terrorism has been a key obstacle to many foreign nations, as they are struggling to prevent terrorist attacks. From the year of 1997 up to the year of 2003, international terrorist attacks have gone from less than 500 to almost 3000. Overall, global terrorism has grown by almost 1200% from 1997 to 2003. (Johnston 1). This massive increase in terrorism reflects on other nations' lack of control of the safety of their nation. These statistics also show that something needs to be done to protect the

The attacks on September 11, 2001 by international terrorist that destroyed the twin towers brought a new American culture of policy change on international terrorism. At first there was a unilateral war on terror and hardening of the United States national borders. The drastic measures ranged from tightening airport security to creating a new governmental Department of Homeland Security with an almost limitless money basis (Anderson, 2003). International cooperation on the war on terror as President Bush adopted a unilateral approach to strike and invade Iraq (United States Code 22 Section 2656F(d) 2013). The assumption of a global terrorism ring brought in a shift around the world to the risk of being attacked. The United States bore the

The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy.

Annotated bibliography Bellamy, Alex J., Security and the war on terror, 1975-, 2007 This author is a university lecturer in the University of Queensland. He is a professor of peace and conflict studies and seems like he has a very broad amount of knowledge in the area of different wars including war on terror. His book security and the war on terror are pushed towards readers who care about the security of their country and the war on terror. ‘This edited book recognises a fundamental issue: while major crises initially tend to reinforce old thinking and behavioural patterns, they also allow societies to challenge and overcome entrenched habits, thereby creating the foundations for a new and perhaps more peaceful future’ .

The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by the Naval War College of the Department of Navy.

This paper will supply a robust summary along with detailed analysis of the article Manufacturing Insecurity: How Militarism Endangers America by William Pfaff. This topic is important and poignant because, if it is true that America’s tendency to sustain military presence internationally is leading to an uptick in the rate of radical insurgents who emerge from the ruins of war than it may mean that US policy makers may have to completely reevaluate how they analyses overseas threats and how to best prepare for these threats to national interests. This paper will address this issue first by providing a summary of the Pfaff article to allow the reader a clearer understanding of the issue at hand. After this summary, this paper will analyze the

If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long — Our security will require transforming the military you will lead — a military that

(intro)September 11, 2001 is the defining moment in the annals of terrorism. Today, after the large ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terror, US is stronger and better positioned to safeguard and support its interests against the risks of an insecure world. However, he still continues to face new dynamic challenges. I argue that the most pressing national security challenge facing the United States in the next 5-10 years is the violent extremism and terrorism derived from ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) group. MP1.ISIS is posing a persistent threat to our security and terrorist attacks within the US Homeland, but also against US citizens abroad and our Allies raise a grave danger. MP2Moreover, ISIS radical ideology undermines all the democracy values by which we live; the respect for human rights, the freedom of speech and religion. MP3 The two main factors that influenced my interpretation of ISIS challenge are the potential risk that ISIS could attain and use weapons of mass destruction, and MP4 its capability to recruit, radicalize and motivate, especially young people, to terrorist acts. MP5 US should continue to lead the fight with our Allies and partners to dismantle ISIS terrorist organization and its violent extremism ideology.

When the September 11, 2001 attacks occurred the United States responded in a manner which was seen as a traditional reaction to such an attack; it used its overwhelming superior military to invade the nation of Afghanistan. As Afghanistan was the operating base of the terrorist group responsible for the attacks, Al Qaeda, the invasion all but destroyed the group's operating capacity. But in response to the United States' apparent victory the terrorists have re-organized themselves into a looser confederation and turned to alternative methods of finance and operation. One could say that the success of the American military's answer to the September 11th attacks have created a new environment in which terrorists currently operate. This includes the use of the internet, unconventional alliances with international criminal organizations, as well the inception of the "lone wolf" terrorist. Faced with these new type of threats, the United States and its allies must find a way to identify and deal with them.

As a direct consequence of September 11, a number of substantial challenges lie ahead in the area of counter-terrorism..   The most prominent of these is the changing nature of the terrorism phenomenon.  In past years, when terrorism was largely the product of direct state sponsorship, policymakers were able to diminish prospects for the United States becoming a target using a combination of diplomatic and military instruments to deter potential state sponsors.  Today, however, many terrorist organizations and individuals act independently from former and present state sponsors, shifting to other sources of support, including the development of transnational networks.

Modern terrorists have come to the realization that “they cannot defeat the United States in a conventional war, but they can impose significant pain through acts of terrorism,” (Stern, p.5). After a century of American military, economic, and social success, the US has been elevated to the forefront of the global community. A defense budget of $401.7 billion makes the United States the dominant military force in the world, (2005 US Federal Budget). Furthermore, our history of success has established a general sentiment of invincibility among American citizens, and an attack on our civilian population would have tremendous ramifications, as was seen with the occurrence of September 11th. However, unlike al-Qaeda in Afghanistan under the Taliban, a nuclear attack may come from a group that does not enjoy the sponsorship of a state, making retaliation quite complicated. This sense of anonymity is another issue of terrorists with nukes that trumps a state with such capabilities. In the case of a state, there is a particular, defined, and easily identifiable party

Over the years there have been significant changes in how terrorism is carried out. With the changes in how terrorism is carried out there have also been dramatic changes in how countries counter terrorist attacks. The modifications in the way a country counters these terrorist attacks affects international relations of these countries. These issues bring about the question of how have counter terrorism methods affected international relations. To answer this question several things must be addressed which are, methodology, history of terrorism, and a literature review of multiple authors that have discussed this subject.