US Counter Terrorism Policy
In the past, the United States has pursued its own vision of international security based upon a particular conception of politics. Its policies have naturally included the use of physical power to underscore strategic aims. This paper seeks to canvass the nuances of US military engagement in the specific context of counterterrorism policy. The politics of physical force traverses the need for both moral and tactical justification. In a broader framework of strategic doctrine, the use of force to achieve strategic goals dictates a comprehensive assessment of the dynamics of military constraints and political realities. Therefore, the fundamental success of an ambitious and unilateral United States counterterrorism doctrine hinges upon its ability to focus upon the tangible and political contingencies of staging a War on Terrorism. In order to go to wage a war there must be an identifiable enemy. Within the constraints of our state-centric international system, there is an equal need to accommodate for the political climate in which one exists. The failure to understand both the enemy and the environment will result in lopsided policies that obstruct the achievement of strategic goals. In the wake of 9/11, with the subsequent
However, 'the New American Calculus of War' [fn] which centres upon a cost-benefit calculation to determine military engagement suffers in value-determination of the political and related costs of war. There are measures of success for military operations (which need to be amply considered), however, there is never the finite assurance of eliminating terrorism per se- merely stemming and directing the aggressive impulse of the phenomenon. [fn]Formulating a response: the containment legacy of the Cold War v RMAIn reaction to a political situation, the statesperson is necessarily going to be driven by a series of goals and dictates significant to the state being impacted. At the apex of the containment doctrine was the fear of the potential nuclear confrontation between the Russian and US bipolar rivals. wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, there in an increasingly heightened sensibility of the need for a consolidated US stance contra terrorism that elucidates a clear and sustainable plan for military engagement to preclude the dangers of 'imperial overreach'. Neither a traditionally conservative nor a modern technological conception of war provides ample flexibility to respond to the diverse range of initiatives required in response to terrorism. This level of abstraction includes both the inclinations of policymakers to adopt previously applied policies that may have been successful but in fact relate to a contextually different situation; also, the potential of manipulating the tide of public and international sentiment in reaction to a particular policy issue. Not in the least, the case of US intervention in Afghanistan demonstrates the extensive and intrusive abilities of the US military and policy planning. The use of military force by the United States in relation to Afghanistan and Iraq prompted, and continues to prompt, debate and criticism. Even with the identification of key terrorist actors, sponsors, or the location of terrorist cells, the character of both political and radical forms of terrorism do not obey traditional principles of international engagement. Broad strategic outcomes may reflect either unexpected reactions or, in the Afghan case, overly ambitious planning. Without venturing into moral critique, a basic focus on: (1) threat perception and strategic goal definition; (2) US military capacity and; (3) international political climate, reveals the untenable nature of a counterterrorist plan that lacks realistic structural and substantive limitations. Taking into account the social, political and historical factors contributing to the situation is the only articulate approach to the backlash and non-conformist attitude of terrorist acts. The counterterrorism policy of the US post 9/11 exhibits a high degree of indifference to these broader issues.
Common topics in this essay:
United Afghanistan,
Calculus War',
Definition Defining,
Afghanistan Iraq,
Socialist Russia,
,
War Terrorism,
War RMA,
United States',
Cold War,
war terrorism,
military engagement,
counterterrorism policy,
strategic policy,
strategic goals,
terrorist actors,
strategic goal definition,
international system,
goal definition,
containment legacy,
international security,
perception strategic goal,
threat perception strategic,
|
Acceptance Essays
