Operation Artemis

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.

Operation Anaconda was the first major joint combat operation against the war on terror that the US was committed to winning. This operation would test our military’s readiness for joint operations against a hardened and willing adversary. The primary mission was to kill/capture Taliban/Al Qaeda forces occupying towns and villages in the vicinity of Shahi Khot in order to gain control of the valley.1 The US needed the towns, villages, mountains, and more importantly, the intricate and hard to access caves cleared of enemy fighters. Units participating in the operation included elements of the 101st Airborne Division, 10th Mountain Division, Special Operations Forces (SOF), and Coalition forces from seven nations

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.

Dan Lindley is assistant professor in international relations and security studies at the University of Notre Dame. Lindley worked for several arms control and research organizations in Washington, D.C. before receiving a Ph.D. from MIT. Lindley has published and spoken on U.N. peacekeeping, internal conflict, the Cyprus problem and Greco-Turkish relations, collective security, the U.S. intervention in Panama, the role of ideas in international politics, and SDI contracting.

When Germany invaded Poland on September 1st 1939 the world went to war for the second time in 27 years. One country, albeit overtly expansionist in its aims, had simply invaded another, but the omens were not good. Unbelievably, so soon after 'the war that will end war ', nations and their leaders had allowed another conflict to threaten the planet. The scope of this new war was not yet apparent, the truth dawning gradually; this one would last six years, involve more than two hundred countries which caused millions of people to suffer, costing 55 million lives and material damage of some 3 billion dollars. The Canadians were significant, and played a pivotal part in the war in various ways. The most significant are Canada’s military, economically and technologically.

As the nature of conflict has changed from that of interstate conflict to transnational attacks, the world must discuss how to effectively combat terrorism in a way that minimizes harm. Throughout the following paper, I will summarize four contrasting responses to terrorism, included in a document adapted from Terrorism: How Should We Respond, of the Choices Program at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University. I will then discuss why I believe Canada’s most effective response to terrorism would be a unique combination of Options Two and Four. I believe that Canada should embrace relations with the international community, and seek solutions to terrorism as a global issue. This response would satisfy

Ever since the end of the Second World War, Canada was not involved in many other issues. After the war Canada assumed a peacekeeping role with the rest of the world. It was only during the first and Second World War Canada was obligated to be involved. Since then Canada has been involved in 14 world conflicts. According to Craig Allen an author at the Canadian encyclopedia, “only 5 of these wars were as part of the British Empire, 3 of them as part of NATO. Of these wars only 1 was initiated by Canada.” The most recent war that was initiated by Canada was the intervention of ISIL. Canada’s military is not as heavily funded in comparison

We will never forget that 17 of our Sailor 's died during a routine refueling stop conducted by the USS Cole. The bombing of the USS Cole (DDG 67) and the subsequent implementation of Anti-Terrorism Force Protection measures are important to our Navy heritage because it is a reminder that vigilance can avert future attacks. Whether in the maritime domain, or in support of operations ashore, Senior Navy Leaders are a key player in ensuring that Anti-Terrorism measures are followed to protect yourself, Sailors ' under your command, and all Navy personnel. This paper will cover the history of the bombing of the USS Cole (DDG 67), the evolution of Anti-Terrorism Force Protection and the effects to current U.S. Navy operations.

With Russia’s belligerent attacks along its borders and in Ukraine, mixed with Trump’s presidency, Canada may have to turn towards military resources and diplomatic sources to ensure Canada’s independence. Nonetheless, Canada’s brand of peacekeeping proves to be stable as Canada will commit $450 million and possibly 600 troops for UN peacekeeping missions and in leading a NATO battle group in Latvia intending to hinder Russia’s aggressions. Overall, these actions simply reflect Canada’s morality, but they may come at the cost of its notorious American ally in this time of political

This political study will define the future effect of the election of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in terms of the Canadian foreign policy in the restructuring of military intervention in foreign affairs and the pro-trade globalization mandates of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Trudeau’s election defines the overriding political agenda of the Liberal Party of Canada to stop ineffective bombing missions in Syria and Iraq, yet to maintain special forces troops to better manage the war against ISIS. More so, Trudeau supports the globalization of Canadian trade by promoting the positive effects of the TPP to promote international growth in trade. These aspects of the new Liberal government are vital aspects of as greater focus on improved economic security and a declining approach to pro-American bombing campaigns as a form of military interventionism in foreign affairs. In essence, a political analysis of the future effects of the Liberal Party of Canada under PM Trudeau will define the restructuring of military intervention in Iraq and Syria and the increased focus on international trade under the guidelines of the TPP in foreign policy.

An obstacle that arises in securing ships and ports is that of travelling to foreign ports. Security professionals are are encouraging the United States government to extend U.S. boundaries to foreign ports, which would put much emphasis on security at loading points (70). The fear is that attackers will board a ship at a foreign port and sail to American soil where they could practice terrorism. A way that shipping security has changed is that of the plan of the Container Security Initiative (CSI), which calls for international security criteria to identify high-risk cargo containers for pre-screening at their point of shipment (70). The Coast Guard has also increased patrols in the U.S. ports and waterways, specifically around the nation’s critical petro-chemical facilities (71). By 2004, The International Ship and Port Facility Security Code took effect requiring ship operators to develop security plans, appoint ship and company security officers and maintain a minimum level of on board security, while port officers are required to develop similar plans and hire a port facility security officer (71). This code made it mandatory for all ships to be secure both while still in ports and also while travelling. Not only does this protect passengers aboard the ship, but also citizens of the United States as threats cannot enter the country through shipping

The threat environment has expanded from a strategic, nuclear, symmetrical threat from bombers, ICBMs, and air-or-sea-launched cruise missiles, to a continuing symmetrical threat in addition to an emergent asymmetric threat, focused across all domains, borders and agencies. Accordingly, our political leaders recognized a need to transform the military for a new ‘home game’. United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) was established to assume responsibility for the defence of the US homeland, and this new Command was tasked to provide military assistance to civil authorities (MACA).

The island nation of Neptune a longtime U.S. ally is in a current crisis with Saturn Neptune’s primary regional rival. Saturn has imposed three distinct efforts to improve its strategic position at the expense of Neptune: Fomenting Insurgency, Naval Blockade, and occupation of Ringneck Island. In response to this escalation by Saturn, the United States has decided to stand up a Joint Task Force (JTF) with in the Pegasus Command (USPEGCOM) Area of Responsibility (AOR)

Bill C-51 also known as the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, is a bill that was first tabled in Parliament in January 2015. It was introduced to enhance Canada’s original anti-terror laws which were created shortly after the terrorist attack on September 11th 2001 in the United States of America. Moreover, the need to revise and amend these laws became even more evident after recent attacks both in Canada and abroad. In doing so the government recognized the need to adopt a more preventative approach to dealing with internal and external threats. However, there are a large number of individuals, groups and institutions which opposed this bill. This was evident in March of 2015 when political protests were held and over fifty-five rallies took place across Canada (Lepore, 1). The majority of those opposed to the new anti-terror legislation expressed concerns with three major components of the bill and the vagueness; to privacy concerns with the new information sharing between agencies, new amendments to the Criminal Code surrounding terrorism offences and the increased powers provided to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS); specifically their perceived lack of oversight. Although this piece of legislation is crucial to the safety and security of Canada against acts of terrorism it requires some amendments in order to ensure proper oversight and respect for Canadian values. This paper will argue that changes need to be made to the CSIS act, specifically regarding

The establishment of the European Union (EU) solidified a united political, economic, and defensive front creating a Supranational Organization (Lucas, 1999, no page). With the assistance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United States, the EU has developed a comprehensive security strategy responsible for leading the coalition’s objectives for mutual solidarity, global stabilization, and defense. To address security threats both regionally and globally set forth by the European Security Strategy (ESS), considerations were developed which encompass both cultural domains of geography and development.