Counterterrorism Efforts After 9/11

September 11th catalyzed a major revival in the American public’s concern for domestic national security, which had dropped off following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The attacks, which were the first on American soil since Pearl Harbor, prompted American leaders to respond with swift and ambitious military action. At this time, the public perceived security of American territory against “terrorism”–an intentionally broad and emotionally charged term– as its chief national interest. Following the attack, President Bush announced the launch of a “global war on terror”, an international effort to combat terrorist groups and the nations that harbor them–prompting him to establish the Department of Homeland Security later that year.

As we live is this world we are faced with all types of diversities. However the main diversity that the world has been facing is terrorism. Within the last decade, terrorism has hit the United States hard. Before the last ten years, The United States have seen signs and acts of terrorism. Before September 11, The United States law enforcements and security forces where not on the same sheet of music of getting information or sharing

After the September 11 terrorist attacks, the United States and other developed countries changed their assumed view of the threat from terrorism. Massive amount of resources were mobilized in a very short time to counter the perceived and actual threat from terrorists and terrorist organizations. In the U.S., this change was pushed as a necessity for what was called "Homeland Security”. It went through the enactment of hundreds of statutes and regulations, substantial changes in policy initiatives, the most massive governmental reorganization since 1947, and brought the new business of homeland security to the face of American awareness. Soon after the terrorist attacks, Congress passed various new laws and enhanced some existing ones

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.

In the wake of September 11, 2001 the United States opened its eyes to the need for new and improved policies that addressed terrorism and homeland security. Law enforcement experienced many changes in their operations and methods of response to such tragic events. The creation of The National Strategy for Homeland Security evoked a federal policy change that included the focus on many issues that were not visible prior to September 11, 2001. The

The National Strategy for Counterterrorism (2011) states, “U.S. CT efforts require a multi-departmental and multinational effort that goes beyond traditional intelligence, military, and law enforcement functions… These efforts must also be complemented by broader capabilities, such as diplomacy, development, strategic communications, and the power of the private sector” (p. 2). On the surface, this statement seems robust and portrays an effort to use every aspect of our national power, however, it’s equally vague and the strategy as a whole lacks measurable goals that can be used to evaluate its effectiveness. The question is, what kinds of data and evidence should we used to evaluate whether or not the current U.S. strategy for counterterrorism

The whole world watched as the Twin Towers came crashing down. Over 85% of Americans feared another terrorist attack was imminent after that devastating day in September 2001(Gallup). Terrorism is now playing more and more of a role in our everyday lives, while it's a sad reality, as a country are we winning against terrorism? The “Yes” author, James Jay Carafano of the Heritage Foundation, seems to think we are. He claims that the U.S. has done a good job of keeping Americans safe and we are still a powerful prosperous country. While the “No” author, William C. Martell, Professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, says the U.S. is not carrying out the most effective methods to tackle terrorism. William C. Martel presents the

The National Security Council is a forum for the president to consider issues of national security and foreign policy with his national security advisers and senior cabinet officials. The problem of national security strategy is that it causes many conflicts and arguments. There are many definitions of concepts of national security. Traditionally security means, first, as the physical survival of the state, protection and preservation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity, the ability to react adequately to potential and real external threats. The date September 11, 2001 has changed the way the world began to perceive their own security threats and related to these threats. As for security and US approach, the White House has released its new "National Security Strategy" in 2002 establishing a pattern for eventual war against terrorism. ("The Whitehouse National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace.". Network Security2002, no. 10 (2002): 2-3. doi:10.1016/s1353-4858(02)10002-x). The argument presented here today will hopefully answer the question “Why is it so difficult to develop and implement a successful national security strategy”? This paper is an analysis of the strategy plan of national security of the United States specifically after the attacks of Sept. 11. The National Security Strategy is poor, especially in relation to national warfare threats.

The end of the Cold War and attacks of 9/11 dramatically altered the landscape of United States national security endeavors. Gone was the singular, nearly tactile threat as presented by a major superpower, and in its place was the “amorphous nature of a terrorist opponent,” (Snow, 2014, p. 112). This novel threat defied easy definition or identification, and attacked in ways to which the U.S. had grown unaccustomed. Phrases like “asymmetrical warfare” and “war on terror” were used liberally by an executive branch wholly unprepared for mitigating such a threat, and exploited to justify any number of means to achieve an end that as yet remains elusive. With the threat now subsiding, and certain means of statecraft and defense

One of the primary responses of the U.S. government after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), in addition to declaring war on terrorism, was to perform an in-depth analysis of the intelligence community. The sole purpose of this was to: (1) understand the issues that prevented or hindered the intelligence community from knowing about, stopping or mitigating attacks, and (2) determine what steps should be taken to ensure that an “intelligence failure” of similar kind would not occur again. To carry out this, Congress authorized the creation of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) with the mandate to specifically investigate the performance of the

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), the worst attack to occur on American soil to date, sparked national outrage and launched a war on terror against international terrorism. Since 9/11, the emphasis of the United States’ counterterrorism policy has been primarily on jihadist terrorism, with law enforcement agencies and U.S. intelligence services viewing international terrorism as the major threat to the nation’s security.With so much energy and attention focused on international terrorism, domestic terrorists have not received as much attention as their foreign

Since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 11 September 2001, there have been different U.S. strategies to try and combat the rise of global terrorism. The attacks made the entire world all too aware of the scale and scope of threats that terrorism can carry. The post-9/11 global climate has thus seen a shift in awareness of and response to terrorist threats. For the last thirteen years now the United States has denoted terrorism as one of the largest threats to national security and the “highest strategic objective of U.S. embassies worldwide”, a challenge which demands no less resolve than the was required to combat Nazism and Fascism during the last century. This is due to the subversive and penetrative nature of global terrorism, as terrorist groups have the potential to undermine governments and strike devastatingly and completely out of the blue. For this reason, the Unites States has ramped up its antiterrorism and counterterrorism efforts in order to combat the aforementioned transnational and global threat of terror.

There have been some rapid changes within our global political climate which could be challenging and new. The Counterterrorism (CT) threats could unfolded quickly like 9/11, now if or when it is done we can only hope that the FBI and the CIA, will do their best to determine if it was some form of social or political events that could be considered a potential threat to the Nation., and if so, what response or measures of attack will we use as a deterrent without hurting civilians’ before it has a chance to manifest. Some agencies

Various aspects influence the efficacy of counterterrorism. With these aspects arises a series of limitations and implementation issues, ranging from funding and personnel shortages, out of date technology for some agencies, insufficient and inefficient data collection and sharing methods, and concerns regarding personnel receiving appropriate clearance.

The target audience of this paper is decision makers who are concerned with the topic of counterterrorism. These include the members of the legislature as well as officials in various government agencies dealing with counterterrorism. The current state of counterterrorism entails the use of violence and military action, such as a drone in combating the activities of terrorists. Other alternatives to the use of violence include policies focusing on the patriot act and the collaboration of various government agencies who are concerned with counterterrorism. The advantages, as well as the disadvantages, of each policy options, are discussed. Moreover, a comparison of the various policy options is discussed. The implications of each policy option politically, socially and economically are also discussed. The recommended policy option is a policy that focuses on the United States Patriot Act aimed at preventing terrorists before attacks actually happen, through the interception of communication. This saves on resources that could have been used in responding to a terror attack. The implementation of the recommended policy on counterterrorism entails the making of changes to the Patriot Act so as to make it more effective and constitutional.