The Argument Against Negotiating With Terrorists

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.

The book “How Terrorism End; Understanding the Decline and Demise of Terrorist Campaigns”, written in 2011 at the height of Al-Qaeda, the most well-known international terrorist group of our time. The author of this work, Audrey Cronin, at the time of print, served as a professor of strategy at the United States National War College in Washington D.C., and a senior associate at Oxford University’s Changing Character of War Program. Both positions allowed her to impact strategic policy making in the execution of the Global War on Terror by allowing her access to senior military and civilian policymakers. Her previous area of her prior work has been mainly focused on international terrorism with an emphasis on al-Qaeda. She has authored

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.

Terrorists deny the authenticity of states, the rights of people , the unique importance of individual human beings and ultimately morality. Terrorists for one reason or another, loathe our freedom and our way of life. (Zupan, 2004)

The purpose of this book is to educate people on how extremism is obstructing the government from operating smoothly. The core thesis is that when the parties do not agree and negotiations cannot be made due to the uncompromising Republicans, the

The second Part of Jonathan R. White’s ninth edition Terrorism and Homeland Security deals with the national and ethnic movements of international terrorism, their emergence as well as well as motifs. Ideological terrorist and ethnic separatists are hard to differentiate since they use the same procedures and tactics to get their demands. Although both fall under the definition of terrorism, there is a difference in the definition of their goals and demands. While separatists have defined, achievable goal, religious terrorists have a nihilistic ideology that are from a rational point of view not feasible. Therefore, it is impossible for satisfactorily negotiation

inflict a heavy cost. The authors continue by positing a dilemma that sounds nearly identical to Adler’. They assert that terrorists use a strategy of provocation that is designed to induce a violent response, which will in turn radicalize population and lead to them supporting the terrorists.

Thus, he emphasizes how terrorist organization in turn assess their targets. Targeting democracies at a certain time in policy debate lead Pape to conclude that the coercive nature of the suicide terrorist attacks is what make them successful in achieving their goals. The author uses two key examples to explain his findings. He emphasis the success of coercion with policy decisions. Israel’s withdraw from Gaza, “Israeli concessions increased their confidence in coercive effectiveness of suicide attack” The Crucial Case of Hamas “examinations of the crucial cases demonstrates that terrorist groups came to the conclusion that suicide attack accelerated Israeli’s withdraw in both cases” (). Pape concludes that viewing the increasing success of terrorist attacks to coerce governments it actuality it is not successful as often as terrorist wants.

The event of September 11, 2001 has left Americans afraid and the government on edge when it comes to our national security. Many individuals are wondering how individuals could use themselves as human bombs or would want to sacrifice themselves to kill thousands that they have never met or talked with (Post, Ali, Henderson, Shanfield, Victoroff & Weine, 2009). Since 9/11 happened, there has been an emotional change in the American public, which results in long term effects of mental illness. While dealing with the reaction of the American public, the government had to also think about the security of our citizens that has led to individuals being labeled as terrorist or being watched for terrorist activities. Therefore, this essay will show reasons why the United Sates should not negotiate with terrorist. By discussing how freezing the funds of terrorist, understanding the use of laws and security, and by noticing the emotional effects that terrorist and terrorist activities has caused the American public.

Political violence is the leading cause of wars today. Personal agendas have led to many of the political objectives that cause violence today this has caused many problems throughout the world and will continue to do so until a solution to this issue is found. Political objectives have been advanced involuntarily dependent upon the kind of government a nation exercises. For instance, in a democratic nation political groups must worry about convincing the majority in order to advance ethically. Those who try to influence the majority through acts of violence are considered today as “terror” organizations. Though perhaps if it were not because of the recent 9/11 terror attacks that maybe such warrants would not be seen as terror attacks,

Walter Laqueur’s book, “The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction”, is empowering readers with the entire spectrum of terrorism. The reasons behind terrorism are not easy to understand, but Laqueur goes into great detail to try and bring the reader to an understanding of what the terrorist is thinking in order to justify the means to the end.

The history of terrorism can be traced back as far as the French revolution. Some of these acts of terrorism only seem as distant reminders of our past, but at the same time, are not a far cry from today’s brutal acts; and although these acts seem distant, it doesn’t also mean they are no longer in the thoughts of individuals in today’s time.

Kegley and Raymond stated: “The shape of the world’s future will be determined not only by changes in the objective conditions of world politics, but also by the meanings people ascribe to these conditions.” Terrorism is presently a major factor in international relations and has impacted the world to change in many significant ways. Terrorism is a political ideology that has been problematic in defining definitely because of its various interpretations around the world, as well as the fact that it is constantly evolving. Since the terrorist events of 9/11, the lives of many have been changed forever. A small group of individuals, which are a mere fraction of the population of the world, have managed to impact and shape the way international and domestic relations are looked at and handled. People question how secure and safe they feel due to uncertainty of public safety because of events such as 9/11. The war on terrorism in the 21st century has certainly and inevitably changed the landscape for global politics. However, the relationship between terrorism and global politics is troublesome and in ways problematic to describe accurately. Both terrorism and global politics individually are complicated phenomenon. It is erroneous to propose that one is responsible for the other or vice versa, but they are inextricably and inevitably linked. In the study of international relations, there are multiple theories and theoretical perspectives. In this essay, realism and liberalism

One of the foremost growing concerns in the modern globalized world is the increasing rate of nuclear proliferation. Coupled with the burgeoning number of nuclear devices is the threat of a terrorist possibly obtaining a weapon of such magnitude. While one could argue that the rising number of states with nuclear capability is a disturbing prospect, particularly as many pursue such capabilities without the approval of the “traditional” nuclear powers, terrorists in possession of nuclear arms presents the most horrific outlook concerning nuclear proliferation. Terrorist groups, unlike states, are not organized governmental bodies, which complicates any means of formalized diplomacy or negotiation. Furthermore, unlike as compared to a

Over the years there have been significant changes in how terrorism is carried out. With the changes in how terrorism is carried out there have also been dramatic changes in how countries counter terrorist attacks. The modifications in the way a country counters these terrorist attacks affects international relations of these countries. These issues bring about the question of how have counter terrorism methods affected international relations. To answer this question several things must be addressed which are, methodology, history of terrorism, and a literature review of multiple authors that have discussed this subject.