Response to Terrorism: Military Vengeance or Positive Actions?

"…the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of

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

A primary consideration in deciding whether or not to use military force is to assess the lethality and influence of the threat to our democracy. Viewing the situation from the lens of the United States, terrorism has consistently been over-exaggerated. Just a few decades ago Washington

America, along with its commitments, needs to “stand behind [its] word, and make sure [that the] word stands up” (Trump 138). This means that we need to take back control and never step back. Compromises should be kept to a minimum, and strong leaders need to take control in Washington (Trump 139). These leaders can be attracted by creating an exciting atmosphere for them to work in, as opposed to a failing government which only a bare minimum of Americans have the heart to try to fix (Trump 140). America needs to increase its power, successfully, military-wise (Trump 137) and financially. This will allow the country to start winning all the time by continually starting at the top of every race, and will force other countries to see it as a serious and strong national

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.

Changes that need to be in place to ensure effectiveness of these critical issues is met would be starting with collecting intelligence about possible and likely terrorist attacks. Intelligence collection is so important for combating terrorism. Sometimes a little bit of information can go a long way, to further make up a bigger picture. Possessing this type of information isn’t going to put an end to terrorism by any means but it will lead into action. It will be more effective when it’s shared with other law enforcement agencies all over the world. The more information that others know it is easier to work together to prevent an attack etc. Another change that needs to be made is to ensure that targets are protected. I know that ever since September 11th security was on a rise for a little while. Now that so many years have gone by the security has dwindled away. For example the security at airports. A few years after that terrorist attack the airports were so efficient with searches and making sure that everyone was safe and no one got past them with any weapons etc. Homeland security was on top of their game. Many years later, things are back to the way they use to be before that attack. I believe that they need to ensure the safety of places like this as much as they do court houses or government buildings. Law enforcement needs to take technology and use it to their advantage in this situation and

First and foremost is that a response was without a doubt warranted, America had to send a clear warning to those responsible that justice would catch up to them. But the measures the government took resulted in more damage to the American people than the satisfaction that should have arose from carrying out the required justice. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan in particular are two critical mistakes that should have been prevented. Instead of fully invading these countries, we could have used all those intelligence agencies created after the attacks to go directly after the masterminds behind the attacks. The case for invading is further weakened by the fact that almost a decade later, and those extremists namely the Taliban and Al Qaeda still exist, and in them has arisen an even deeper evil in Isis. Another consequence resulting from the invasion is a huge loss of lives. During the attacks, almost three thousand people lost their lives, if those were not enough precious lives to lose, a decade after the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, America has lost an unbelievable six thousand, eight hundred and forty five brave men and women and over nine hundred thousand to injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan (Goodman). In retaliation to the 2001 attacks, some Americans have lost their loved ones because of a quick decision made by the government

Our nation’s actions toward seeking justice and preventing any attacks of this scale from happening again came with quick notion, “Less than a week later (following the 9/11 attacks), Congress authorized the President to use military force ‘against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks,” (Yin). In essence, Congress gave the president the ability to use the military to seek out and detain terrorists responsible for 9/11, showing our country’s dedication to ending these attacks and those who initiated them for good. Overall, this tragic event revealed the need for stricter defense regulations against non-state actors (terrorists). For this reason, 9/11 was the catalyst for the beginning of the War on Terror and, consequently, the opening of Guantanamo Bay.

Despite being the superpower of the world, the United States of America does not enjoy any exception from the global threats and challenges. The people in denial of such global threats finally woke up to the reality on the dawn of September 11th, 2001, when terrorists struck American financial hub in the city of New York. A badly shaken nation shocked by the magnitude of brutality quickly assembled behind its president to pass a legislation, known as the USA Patriot Act, to tackle internal and external threats to this nation on a war footing basis. The haste with which this legislation was passed made it controversial almost immediately. No doubt, the intent was valid and there was an absolute need to tackle threats to the homeland, however,

The world is now watching our actions closely. We are on the right side of justice in this war and should not give up our moral high ground in achieving our ends. Washington's immediate, bipartisan response to the terrorist attacks speaks well for our representatives and reflects the revived sense of patriotism prevalent nationwide. However, we are now sufficiently distanced from the attacks of September 11 to hold the Administration's proceedings to the very American standard of justice, which we are now engaged in defending. I am shocked to witness this country quietly succumb to the recent blatant and inappropriate expansion of powers the Justice Department and White House have assumed. This is not melodrama. A democratically elected US President and his Attorney General are proceeding as if they were reading out of a rouge states' instruction manual. This country is too great to fall to cave-dwelling terrorists who redirect a population's frustrations at us. It is not un-American to question the legitimacy of the recent anti-terrorism legislation, though risky for politicians who face being labeled liberal or soft in their response to the attacks. There is no question that we are justified in using tremendous force in retaliation. We do risk losing the world's support and help though if we now abandon our judicial processes. The United States is undermining the fight against terrorism by allowing President Bush to assume

Much has been made of terrorism and political crime lately. Since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center buildings and the Pentagon most have asked questions such as: How could this happen? Why would someone do this to so many innocent people? And possibly even more importantly, how do we prevent this from happening again? The attacks on that tragic day weren’t the first in our country though they were the most devastating to date. They were devastating in accordance with casualties and also emotionally for the whole country. One could only hope they would be the last, though this has not been the case. Before one can begin to analyze how the United States should combat such a horrific form of warfare and political change, one must first start to understand a few key elements. One must begin to understand what terrorism is, where it came from, and why terrorism exists.

People felt more that their civil liberties were trampled on. However, patriotism stood ten feet tall. According to (Keene, Cornell & O’Donnell, 2013), they all mentioned that “the 9/11 attacks, as they came to be known, reshaped the ongoing debate about America’s role in the world and the best way to protect American citizens” Many people oppose the war because they did not heard anything if America had ever found any “weapon of mass destruction” in Iraq. This was President Bush justification that those weapon existed to evade Iraq and Afghanistan. In the long run, America found them going to war with this Islamist extremist group called the al-Qaeda.” This modern day war that we are experiencing, with other extremist group known as “ISIS,” had infiltrated numerous countries. One of their latest attacks is on the LGBT night club in Orlando; this monster is a sick individual and word cannot express how this savage beast build robbed innocent people of their lives and destroyed family. Whatever it takes to defeat these vicious people I am going to support it. The decision is tough, but America and her Allies, will work diligently which is going to be a tough

The United States is in a perpetual state of national emergency. A state of emergency, is a situation of national danger or disaster, in which a government suspends normal constitutional procedures in order to regain control. In the wake of the September 11, 2001 (9/11) terror attacks, Congress adopted a resolution on September 14, 2001, stipulating: “the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” The broad interpretation of the law by the executive branch has provided it with unlimited authority to act not only against those responsible for 9/11, but any

In order for the United States of America and its allies to live a life free of terrorist threats, they need to counter violent extremism and terrorism with swift and deliberate prevention efforts world-wide.

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.