Terrorism And Terrorism

Fighting fire with fire, or in this case, fighting terrorism with terrorism. This, simply put, is what many believe to be the solution to terrorism - a War on Terror. NATO is well-known for being one of the largest and strongest organizations or military alliances in which participating states agree to mutual defense in any event of an external attack. Since the attack of 9/11, NATO, with the lead of the U.S., has been determined to eradicate each and every single terrorist group or any form of terrorism. Over the years, these motivations have sparked countless controversial issues as ethics of this war became increasingly questionable. Although many may support this concept of a "War on Terror", it is simply, without question, economically damaging, misleading, and a hopeless attempt to solve the issue of terrorism.

Nonetheless, the U.S. needs to stop being the only country exhausting all efforts to be the world police. NATO Military Super-bases should be created as staging points in high areas of concentrated terrorist organizations and activity. Most military bases in the Middle East were built and paid for by the U.S. Most of those bases have been turned over to the country they are in when the military supposedly had no need to occupy them anymore, just to be destroyed and/or resources exhausted by terrorist organizations. Now this is no new concept, not too elaborative to believe it could not be accomplished though. These military super-bases would be a collaborative effort. Therefore, they would be made up of those forces involved in fighting and protecting world order. In other words, world leaders involved in NATO would lead the way on this

NATO relies on stable political and economic conditions for members to meet their obligations. Several NATO countries are limited by economic development and national debt. In 2014, NATO Allies pledged to increase defense spending and meet the NATO 2% guidelines. (EUCOM Posture Statement, 16) Recent Russian manipulation of political and economic programs exploits this vulnerability and creates instability and weakens the NATO Alliance. (USEUCOM Theater Strategy, 3)

“In an interconnected world, social and economic catastrophe in one country spills over onto its neighbours” (Chauvet, et al., 2007, p. 3). “Failing States” are often blamed for housing terrorist groups and transnational criminal enterprises, for the proliferation of small weapons, the spread of infectious disease, and endangering global energy security (Patrick, 2007; Lynch, 2016). They also account for a disproportionate amount of civil wars around the world and large number of refugee movements (Chauvet, et al., 2007). Outside countries, and agencies alike often find themselves intervening in the affairs of failing states to prevent “failure” from crossing boundary lines. On occasion the collapse of one administration can initiate a domino effect in neighbouring countries. The recent “Arab Spring” is one of the greatest examples of a “spillover” or domino effect in recent history (de Blij, et al., 2014). What began as an act of protest by a young Tunis man burning himself in December 2010, quickly grew into a number of public protests. A couple weeks later the Tunisian government was forced to step down and within months protests against established autocratic administration had diffused to nearby countries, and Libya, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, and Bahrain were experiencing similar public outcry (de Blij, et al.,

For the Pentagon one of its top priorities is protecting the citizens and shores of the United States of America. In order to protect its borders, the Pentagon needs a National Security strategy that outlines how the US will protect its interests and allies while providing stability to certain regions of the world and how to prevent terror from reaching its shores. One national security expert, Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett, wrote a book called The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century. His book describes his theory that he believes the US should follow to protect itself and its interests abroad, how the theory applies to future operational environments, and challenges, opportunities and threats within the theory.

In today’s trend towards a more globalized world, there are many global entities that each state chooses or chooses not to participate in. Two of the largest International Global Organizations are the United Nations (UN) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); both of which the United States of America belongs to. There are stark contrasts between how the UN and NATO are run. For this reason, the United States’ foreign policy and defense may be better served in one of these entities compared to the other. Some may argue that the United States (US) is best represented with being part of the UN because it allows the US to discuss its ideas and plans with practically all states around the globe. On the other hand, people may argue that

A common grievance among many leaders of the United States, like President Trump, is that NATO members are uncommitted to defend themselves from emerging forms of attack sovereign of the Alliance's assistance. The Alliance recently spent over 150 billion US dollars on equipping select member countries, while European countries fiscally struggled under the weight of unsolicited mass migration and mainland Europe became targets for Islamic Extremists. With Turkey pushes the limit on diplomatic relations, Russia attempting to swallow its Western neighbors, and Greece painfully working amongst disapproving NATO States, the US often see’s no vital purpose in expending

ONGOING NATO MISSIONS: NATO is an active and leading contributor to peace and security on the international stage. It promotes democratic values and is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes. However, if diplomatic efforts fail, it also has the military capacity needed to undertake crisis management operations, alone or in cooperation with other countries and international organizations to maintain peace and stability. With approximately 18,000 active military personnel, NATO has the capacity to carry out a wide range of military operations and missions around the world, often involving complex ground, air and naval operations in all types of environments. Throughout the 1990s NATO has been instrumental in managing 7 www.nato.int/summit2009/topics_en/05-enlargement.html

For over four decades the citizens of the United States focused their attention to the seemingly interminable tension that existed between American and the Soviet Union. Fear of the USSR and the communist regime tormented Americans, who poured their energy into promoting and safeguarding the democratic values they had always been accustomed to. As the Cold War steadily subsided, the United States and the Soviet Union came together to repair the damage they had inflicted on one another since the end of the Second World War. With the Cold War in the past, the field of International Relations shifted its focus to a multitude of new issues that were on the rise. Issues that were not necessarily relevant during the Cold War, but have dominated global politics in recent years, are defined under the concept of human security. In order to accurately assess the universal political system in a post Cold War world, a more expansive definition of security is required.

This paper posits NATO is undermined by any alliance member not meeting its inherent responsibilities to adequately fund the organization, training, and equipping of an organic conventional deterrence capability. Defense of Secretary Mattis captured the essence of this argument when addressing NATO in

Established as a Cold War-era counterweight to Soviet power, NATO is characterized by its “commitment to democratic values and practices that, along with its unique, integrated military structure, sustains it even at times when its members’ short-term strategic calculations diverge.” (Hunter) In theory, then, the bonds between the United States and Europe should be close and enduring. Indeed, the interests of the two entities have largely converged throughout NATO’s half century history despite occasional differences.

The viability of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been shaped, and in some ways galvanized, by its experience in the waning Afghanistan conflict and its deep concern with the developing crisis of Russian aggression in Europe. The United States and the allies are incorporating the lessons learned from the Afghanistan campaign while re-establishing the fundamental priorities and basis for the Alliance. The Alliance has weathered decades of the cold war and periods of revolutionary change. It has expanded its members while also expanding its responsibilities in the modern world which is still beset by old problems. These collective problems still require collective security, which NATO still maintains and will continue to

The end of the Cold War has brought about a security environment that is more complex. Globalisation resulted in an ever evolving strategic landscape and a diversity of security problems. Military operations have varied due to humanitarian encounters, terrorist attacks and other non-conventional conflict. Subsequently, these has led to militaries requiring to tackle an array of tasks from traditional sovereign and border security issues to operations other than war. These threats extent beyond boundaries and target various organisation and countries. Thus the security and welfare of nations have become even more closely linked and security programmes have to continually adjust to become relevant encompassing a combined global effort. With greater use of coalition forces, the need for inter-operability with other armed forces has also increased.

But a programe to train and arm 5,000 Syrian rebels to take the fight to IS on the ground has suffered embarrassing setbacks” (Syria: The). This has caught the attention of neighboring countries that have political ties, such as Russia who are close allies with Syria, and have begun a proxy war by supplying the regime or rebels with weapons and financial support, however countries are not the only ones who have taken a keen interest in the prospects that a tattered political and war torn Syria have to offer.

NATO starts the year 2000 with the issue of concern. The European Allies' defense capability, stabilization efforts in the Balkans, and relations with Russia are at the top of a highly charged agenda.