Richard A Clarke Book Review

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.

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.

Social and cultural aspects play a significant role in the media’s unflattering depiction of Islamic extremists, which correlates directly to military spending and relations with the Middle East. Since 9/11, when Arabs attacked the U.S. on behalf of Afghan Islamic extremists, relations with the Middle East have been tense, according to Thomas Kean and others in "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” from the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Kean and others report that repercussions of the 9/11 attacks included homeland security improvements. Dov S. Zakheim, former U.S. Undersecretary of Defense and Chief Financial Officer, similarly discussed that relations worsened after 9/11 in "September 11: A Decade Later What 9/11 Has Wrought”, which details the effects

The study of George Tenet’s actions leading up to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan leaves little doubt about the dysfunction within our government from the appointment of officials to the decision making process itself. Tenet was appointed by President Clinton as Director of the Intelligence (DCI) in 1997, just 19 months after becoming deputy to DCI. It was noted that Tenet had never managed a large organization, worked as an intelligence officer or serviced in the military, all of which would have provided the experience and expertise needed

On September 11th 2001, the United States was hit with a devastating blow when four commercial airplanes were hijacked by Al-Qaeda terrorist who deliberately crashed two of the planes into the World Trade Center complex, and a third plane into the Pentagon. The fourth plane, headed for Washington D.C., instead crashed in Pennsylvania. Nearly 3,000 lives were lost on this egregious day. In response, President George W. Bush waged the controversial “Global War on Terrorism” which turned out to be a self-inflicted wound for America, bleeding still today. Bush’s highly-criticized decision was inconsistent with the strategic principles of war.

The attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 were the direct result of the failure of US agencies, ranging from the White House to airport security, to recognize vulnerabilities present in the various symptoms. The reason why these vulnerabilities were not acknowledged and repaired is that these various agencies were trapped in a cognitive dissonance cycle of thinking. After the Cold War, terrorism was seen as a regional problem (9/11 Commission, 92). The majority of terrorist groups were either groups sponsored by governments or militants trying to create governments (i.e. Palestine Liberation Organization). As a result, the tactics used for fighting terrorism were centralized mostly in the Middle East and were restricted to

In this persuasive essay, Charles Krauthammer immediately speaks on the steady demise of the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda and how the war on terror was an “unconventional war by an unconventional enemy” that required an unconventional approach to win (Krauthammer 706). Krauthammer states that there has not been a major terrorist attack in the United States of America in over a decade. In turn, this supposedly demonstrates to the audience that the defensive apparatus created by President George W. Bush to counter terrorism has been very effective in getting its purpose done, and that is to protect the American citizens.

    When I decided to write this essay, I knew without hesitation that I would write about Washington's response to the terrorist attacks that struck New York and Washington. I did not realize how difficult such an undertaking would be, as I find myself in a somewhat an uncomfortable position. Forcing myself to confront the issues at hand means deciding which freedoms are acceptable casualties in this war and for whom.  To allow Attorney General Ashcroft to lead us into a new era of American justice that resembles McCarthyism or the internment of Japanese-Americans a half-century ago would be regrettable.

In the film, Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore turns his eye on George W. Bush and his War on Terrorism agenda. Through facts, footage and interviews, Moore illustrates his opinion of how Bush and his companions have gotten America into worse trouble than ever before and why Americans should not stand for it. When tragedy hits America with the 9/11 attacks, Moore explains how Bush failed to take immediate action to defend his nation. In the film, Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore is trying to persuade his viewers to believe that the Bush Administration is corrupt by effectively using pathos, egos, and logos.

In Part Three, Cole and Dempsey focus on the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996, a forerunner to the Patriot Act that helped to establish the legal framework for today’s domestic war on terror. The act allows the State Department to designate Foreign Terrorist Organizations in a process that is highly politicized and lacking sufficient objective criteria. It also makes it possible for government prosecutors to bring cases against individuals without proof that they have engaged in terrorism, aided or abetted terrorists, or planned to commit terrorism. Under the 1996 act, the government may freeze the assets of designated terrorist groups and use secret witnesses against those suspected of having links to terrorists.

This author’s knowledge then can be very valid as he knows the ins and outs of how America deals with security threats. This means that this author is not like other authors as they have not been in that situation as he has had to deal with threats and was around then the war on terror was getting more serious. ‘In 1984, the Reagan Administration used the term "war against terrorism" as part of an effort to pass legislation that was designed to freeze assets of terrorist groups and marshal the forces of government against them’ .it was around then terrorism was a major threat to western states. This is good for the bibliography as it shows a different point of view and gives the bibliography more variety and different perspectives on war on

On September 11 2001, an attack was made on United States. Four systematic terrorist attacks were pulled off by the group al-Qaeda simultaneously bringing down the World Trade Centre in New York and damaging the Pentagon in Washington D.C. As extensive and in depth as the cause for the attack may have been, September 11 is an event that has undoubtedly left its mark in American history. A turning point, as some would call it, of the political, social, and economic systems of the United States. Quickly following the terrorist attack on 9/11, President George W. Bush called for a “war against terrorism.” Instead, what truly occurred was an act of counter terrorism. After 9/11, the political system of America took a turn for the worst;

In order to understand the policies adopted in the War on Terror, we must first look to the origins of the conflict as well as the practices involved. Whilst the term itself was initially introduced during the Reagan administration, it was given renewed vigour under George Bush following the attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon on 9/11. The consequences of these attacks saw the Bush administration undertake a new policy against terrorism which included: defeating terrorists and abolishing their organisations, denying sponsorship and support to terrorists and defending US citizen’s interests at home and abroad (Whitehouse Archives, 2003). In this way, the War on Terror can be considered more than just an armed conflict

On March 16, 2006, the White House released President George W. Bush’s second-term National Security Strategy (NSS), which later come to be regarded as the Bush doctrine. The doctrine was developed predominantly in response to the most unforgettable day in the American history – the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. He comes up with the two major pillars of the National Security Strategy which consist of the promotion of freedom, democracy and also he used the ‘globalized approach’ to extinguish terrorism due to the global security. On the other hand, President Washington and President Eisenhower emphasizes different arguments on how does that military-based ‘global approach’ would be indeed beneficial and

In this opinion essay, Charles Krauthammer immediately speaks on the steady demise of the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda and how the war on terror was an “unconventional war by an unconventional enemy” that required an unconventional approach to win. Krauthammer states that there has not been a major terrorist attack in the United States of America in over a decade. In turn, this demonstrates to the audience that the defensive apparatus created by President George W. Bush to counter terrorism has been very effective in getting its purpose done, to protect the American citizens. Krauthammer concludes his opinion essay by stating