Counter-Terrorism Strategy Essay

Australia’s first anti-terror laws were enacted in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 (Prof Andrew Lynch 2010). In recent years, increasing Australian involvement in international conflict has seen these laws shift to accommodate alarming trends in home grown terrorism (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation 2014). Sydney’s 2014 terror raids prompted the most significant changes to Australia’s counter terrorism legislation in the last decade (Commonwealth of Australia Department of Defence 2015). Amendments granted law enforcement and intelligence agencies new and somewhat controversial powers, in the name of national security.

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 book “How Terrorism End; Understanding the Decline and Demise of Terrorist Campaigns”, written in 2011 at the height of Al-Qaeda, the most well-known international terrorist group of our time. The author of this work, Audrey Cronin, at the time of print, served as a professor of strategy at the United States National War College in Washington D.C., and a senior associate at Oxford University’s Changing Character of War Program. Both positions allowed her to impact strategic policy making in the execution of the Global War on Terror by allowing her access to senior military and civilian policymakers. Her previous area of her prior work has been mainly focused on international terrorism with an emphasis on al-Qaeda. She has authored

Over years, America has spent heavily in increasing Military stockpiles and sending missions in foreign war-ravaged countries. In such countries as Iraq, Syria and Sudan, such huge expenditure have not yielded proportionate and satisfactory results. Therefore, the foreign military campaigns have largely remained cosmetic since violence on such countries resume thereafter. Additionally, those who bear the burden are the American taxpayers whose toil go down in drain without reward. The reason for failure is that America had not invested in addressing the causal roots of the problems resulting in violence in the countries (Carroll, & Sage Publications, 2003). In its stead, America will invest further in enhancing diplomacy and constructive engagements, aimed at correcting long standing causes of the wars. At the same time, the party proposes more stringent measures in protecting Federal frontiers through strong legislation on immigration and deployment of Forces to avert foreign

Security measures drastically increased after 9/11. 9/11 was an act of terrorism that would change the way the country handled privacy. Americans needed to voice their opinions after this happened and have their own rights protected. The need to protect individual rights is the utmost important aspect in a thriving U.S. society.

The dilemma facing state leaders for the past decades has been whether to respond to terrorism through a criminal justice approach or a more involved military approach. The criminal justice approach treats terrorism as a law-and-order problem in which the main burden is placed on the judiciary and police. In contrast, the military approach treats terrorism as a perilous threat to the national security of the state, which can only be countered with military force and wartime procedures. The argument of this paper is that military procedures are not warranted in dealing with terrorism because the terror threat is not lethal or influential enough to threaten our democracy, and even if it was, military action has proven itself to be so fraught with problems and costly risks in past interventions that continued use of such a tactic would not only harm our national security, but also could precipitate the fall of the American Empire. Instead, law-enforcement has proven itself to be an efficient counter-terrorism tool that results in the capturing of terrorists, acquisition of intelligence, and spurring of cooperation with allied countries.

Terrorism is a massive problem--everybody realizes that. Regardless of origin, culture, country, or political standpoint, every sane person understands that terrorism is something that is still relatively prevalent in the world, and something needs to be done about it. The problem, however, is that there is no easy solution. The United States tends to take overbearing control and responsibility for all terrorist threats, groups, and attacks, but this is simply not reasonable. Although we cannot expect every country to take initiative against terrorist threats like ISIS, sustained international coordination is necessary to effectively confront transnational terrorist groups (Shirkey). This way, the US can begin taking care of themselves and their own country, as they still have many issues that have yet to be solved. While working together is important, though, it is not the key to solving the problem. What we must do in addition is investigate and address the root causes of terrorism, and analyse them in detail in order to best combat terrorist groups at their roots.

By understanding the steps to prepare for countering and responding to a terrorist, the well-being of US national security interests can be promoted and the exposure to risk and susceptibility to experiencing harm can be efficiently managed for communities, families and individuals in the event of a terrorist incident. The welfare of US national security, citizens and property can be effectively safeguarded through the understanding of protection strategies administered collectively by local communities, families and individuals. Local emergency operations planning, family disaster planning, as well as self-protection planning each represent important protective measures, which serve to educate the nation and its citizens how to

Before 2001, al-Qaeda, an Islamist militant organization founded by Osama bin Laden, had proven itself a security menace to both the West and the Muslim world. Achieving its height of power in 2001, the group and its Taliban allies were on the verge of taking over Afghanistan (Longest, 7). Then the group made a central mistake: It choose to wage an offensive jihad attack against the United States on American soil. For a time after 9/11, al-Qaeda appeared largely victorious from the devastation left behind of their ruthless exploit; but instead, the craven act would prove to be the beginning of the terrorist organization’s demise.

The al-Qaeda of today is a vastly different entity from the al-Qaeda formed by Osama bin Laden towards the end of the Afghan war against the Soviets in 1988 (Alexander and Swetnam, 2001: 37). The evolution, or as Burton (2006) has termed it “devolution”, of al-Qaeda, is partially linked to its terrorist acts, and, in particular, the counter-terrorist measures employed by governments to deal with them. This is most evident in reference to the single most expensive, in terms of life lost and economical impact, terrorist act in modern history, the destruction of the World Trade Centre, and the subsequent declaration of a “war on terror” by George Bush’s United States and its Allies. It is the actions in response to terrorist acts that has

The Attack on the September 11, and the consequent War on Terror changed how the American government and its public perceive terrorism and how to formulate a policy to counter the phenomenon. A couple of large wars were waged on the name of War on Terror and many other small wars and conflicts took place in numbers of countries and continents to eradicate the threat of a terrorist attack. Yet the terrorist groups survived and the United States were left with a large debt acquired by expensive counterterrorism effort. After more than a decade, we are still facing the same enemy with no concrete plan to end the conflict. As long as the United States remains as a world powerhouse and a key player in global stage, it will be a target of a terrorist attack, so there must be an effective plan to finally end the threat of terrorism. The counter-terrorism strategy of the United States following the Attack on September 11 has been largely ineffective. In order to end the Fourth Wave of Modern Terrorism, there must be a strategy shift within the United States government while simultaneously creating a counter-narrative to oppose Al-Qaeda 's propaganda.

Terrorism, in a modern day perspective, has been molded as a Middle Eastern threat to Western Civilization; although the whole idea of terrorism itself has existed for ages. Undoubtedly, “The War on Terror,” is a western form of saying to depict the general aspect of terrorism. Through all aspects of the world, terrorism, is defined as an act of unruly and warlike tactics that mainly creates harm to civilians. Usually, these acts of violence are not simply for the use of harming citizens, but to voice specific mutinous organizations that do not comprehend with the standard civilization. This analysis will numerically discuss the main aspects of the United States intervention with terrorism, past terrorist acts, and a modern day

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.

The government can implement many new methods to increase security, or better yet give off the image of better security which is what they have predominantly done, yet ultimately there will always be a way to bypass or come up with a new way to infiltrate that measure. The government so far has done a variety of things ranging from the closing of the Dulles airport (permanently), working with the FAA on new security measures, having pilots carry handguns, and a not so specific, profiling.