A War on Terror?

The risk of declaring a war on terror is that it is a war that can neither be defined nor won. And the problem with declaring this war based on the 9/11 threat is that it will be confused by some as a war on Islam. As a war, the emphasis in the public’s mind and the collective mind of the international community is on a military solution. This puts an unfair burden on our military and tends to disguise the steps that the international community needs to take for a cooperative effort to counter the terrorism threat and to get at its roots. Without a broader perspective, we are dealing with the symptoms and paying too little attention to the causes. Despite the promise of preemptive military attack and the military character of our efforts, we are at risk of being caught up in a defensive war and our steps are likely to be reactive. This gives the terrorists the initiative to attack and pull back at times and places of their choosing.

 

The President is right that the Iraq theater is the front line of the war on terror. But it is the front line because the terrorists have seen it as an opportunity and chosen it as the front line. They have been able to use Iraq as a recruiting device, as a training ground, and as an easy point of access to American and allied targets. They could just as easily pull out tomorrow and take their actions to other target states like Saudi Arabia, with its vulnerable oil facilities, or Jordan, with its vulnerable relationship with Israel and the United States.

Terrorism was not invented by 9/11. It was not the creation of perverted Islam. It has been around for a long time. And it is being used by groups and states around the globe. The administration tried to narrow the fight by defining our enemy as terrorist organizations with global reach. Who then does that exclude? Arguably, neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Islamic Jihad are organizations with global reach. Does that make them any less of a terrorist organization? If we are going to have this fight, and it is clear that we must, then the fight has to be about delegitimizing the terrorists’ tactics whoever they are and whatever their cause. The world must come to conclude that making innocent civilians pay for the imagined or real sins of others is unacceptable and intolerable.

 

To do this, we need the concerted help of many states, particularly those most directly threatened by terrorism. So when Egypt, or Russia, or Saudi Arabia seeks our help to terminate a group that has engaged in murder of civilians and threatens to do so again, we cannot stop to worry about the nature of the regime we are helping to defend. We have to have clear priorities.

 

At the same time, neither we nor our closest friends can afford to reward terror tactics. When terrorism works, and the terrorists achieve their tactical goals, then we all lose. When the Israelis pay the price of releasing fifty Palestinian prisoners to rescue one Israeli hostage, then the terrorists win. And then you can bet we will see more incidents of hostage taking. When the United States responds to an attack on our barracks and we are seen to be withdrawing, as we did in Lebanon and, arguably, again after the al-Khobar attack, then the terrorists win. If the French pay substantial ransoms to secure the release of their citizens in Iraq, then the terrorists win. This is possibly the most painful price we and our friends may have to pay to delegitimize terrorism.

 

There is, however, one more avenue that we will have to explore if we are to win this battle. That is the question of why normal people, regardless of nationality or religion, can be seduced into terrorism. Let’s leave aside the mentally unstable or the sociopath. As the evidence on terrorists tends to indicate, they are generally educated and from moderate means. But they feel aggrieved and they feel powerless to affect conditions. They are therefore susceptible to those who offer a purpose and a path. For those people we have to provide an alternative purpose and path. They will have to be reeducated and reeducation starts with the population at large.

 

In the Islamic communities and among national movements, this is a role for religious and civil authorities and leading personalities. We must seek such personalities and leaders out. But to succeed, we also have to listen to their concerns and the concerns of the people they represent. And we have to be responsive. If the concern is the plight of the Palestinian people, for example, then we need to do more to help them. And we will not be able to hide behind political definitions and self imposed constraints. We cannot be complacent in the face of genuine grievances and we need not be ashamed or afraid to say no, when the concerns are unjustified or unrealistic.

 

Terrorism is a mechanism to gain attention for a cause that is being ignored by the world. Before Black September and Munich the Palestinians were anonymous. As Golda Meir said in the late 60’s “there is no such thing as the Palestinian people.” After the spate of terrorist events, no one had any doubt that Palestinians existed, and they were not just refugees.

 

People need legitimate channels to express their concerns and political views. And in this context democracy can be a weapon against terrorism. But even before democracy, education is the sharpest arrow in our quiver. In the final analysis, it is education that can inoculate people against the promise of terror.   

Comments

[Ryan M. Murphy]

Terror can come in many forms. A bomb placed in a busy market, a boat filled of explosives careening towards an oil rig, a plane. These are only a few of the many vehicles that terrorist can use to attain their goal of disruption. These attacks can occur any place, at any time. Though necessary, it is a waste of our time and money to attempt to end terror by only acting against terror threats such as these. In order for nation-states to effectively fight these terrorists they must do more than react to attacks but take the terror groups out at their roots. In order to end terrorism we must be able to give a voice to those disenfranchised on the global scale and give those that feel a bomb is the only way to be heard a voice instead. Though we may disagree with their points and throw their suggestions out of contention, giving the unheard voices will allow for the reduction reducing of their need to take drastic measures. By being active in our attempts to pacify small parties and give those that might not have had a voice a way of being heard, we can take away the reasoning why terrorist groups form and resultantly reduce acts of terror.

[Julianne Jaquith]

I think we all need to consider the point that Ambassador Walker made the other day – the fact that terrorism is a means to an end and that terrorists have specific objectives. These objectives have motivated the terrorists into forming strong networks. It may be impossible to eliminate terrorism and these networks; however, we must come up with a strategy to limit the effects of terrorism. How do we do this? I think that education must be the primary means. The anti-American sentiment worldwide has become pervasive. Therefore, we must change the way we comport ourselves in the international theater in order to change our international image. The first way we can do that is to eliminate oil as a basis for our foreign policy decisions. The terrorists feel that America has used the Middle East’s oil reserves in order to propel itself to international dominance. We need to be seen as a benevolent actor as opposed to a self interested hegemon in order to help educate people about what America really stands for.

[TJ Reynolds]

I think the underlying theme of this posting is that the solution lies in a global cooperation against terrorism. When terrorists are able to finance their attacks by recieveing ransom from places like France and Italy, who do not share the United States' same policy concerning not dealing with terrorists, it is a problem for the global community. Clearly, creating a legitimate means of expressing one's views and beliefs would be a step in the right direction for trying to eliminate terrorism as a potential option.

[Mitchell O'Connor]

One point made in the blog is that the US needs the assistance of many states in the war on terror and that "we cannot stop to worry about the nature of the regime we are helping to defend." I find this statement problematic, as our support for repressive, corrupt and unjust regimes is often what motivates terrorists and gives them a common cause around which to rally. For instance, Osama bin Laden targeted the US in the 1990s after American support for Saudi Arabian anti-terrorism actions. I think that it is important for the US to carefully consider the types of regimes it is defending in the world and whether those regimes are consistent with the values of freedom, democracy and equality which we espouse. When the US supports regimes that are inconsistent with our values, we are viewed as hypocritical and a legitimate target for terrorists. This happened in the 1979 student revolt against the American-supported Shah in Iran. Iranian students took US Embassy personnel hostage as a result of American support of the autocratic Shah.

[Daniel Laub]

I agree that it is extremely difficult to fight a war against people who are unafraid to die. Furthermore, I do not believe that military action against fundamentalists is the best way to combat such a force. In order to combat terrorism, the U.S. needs the help of states from around the world who are also concerned about the threats of terrorism. Second, the U.S. along with its international partners must work hard never to give into terrorist threats and/or demands. By conceding to terrorist threats and actions, terrorists have achieved their goals which is to change what we stand for and our way of life. By giving into to terrorism, we only perpetuate more terrorist acts against us. For example, although the Israelis want their soldier back, they must use the utmost self-control and understand that if they concede to terrorists and release fifty Palestinian prisoners, the terrorists have won. In order to prevent terrorism in the future, the most effective weapon the U.S. and its international allies can use is education, understanding, and recognition. Terrorist organizations such as Hamas take advantage of the uneducated Palestinian youth and “brainwash” them into believing that to die for Allah is a ticket to heaven. Instead, the U.S. and its allies have the responsibility to provide alternative educational programs for the youth, in order to properly educate them. Furthermore, we must increase our interactions with religious heads and civil authorities in the Islamic world. We must “listen to their concerns and the concerns of the people they represent. And we have to be responsive.” Because many of these people do not have the peaceful means to become heard, they resort to violence in order to get their messages across to the international community. However, we must not be afraid to disagree with these people, and have the courage to say no if we feel their concerns are unjustified or unrealistic.

[Aidee Acosta]

I agree with the fact that the war on terror is a war that can not be won. We as a country have to educate ourselves on Islam. The war on terror not only seems like a war on Islam but it gives space for discrimination to occur to those who practice Islam. I also believe that terrorism is a mechanism to gain attention. The war on terror might also be a mechanism of getting sympathy from other countries. Terrorism is a global issue that affects everyone but if we are going to fight terrorism we first need to educated as to why is it occurring. After we know why the issue is happening and we get educated on what it is that the individuals want we might have some sort of answer to the problem. People do need to be heard and express themselves and we as a whole nation need to be able to listen and not jump into conclusions. We all need to get educated on the issue and then we might find some solutions. Today the country we are in is Iraq but what country will be next? Will we destroy those other countries as well? We need to be strategic.

[Scott Iseman]

The War on Crime, the War on Poverty, the War on Hunger and the War on Drugs are "wars" declared in this way because of their rhetorical value. A declaration of war implies something to the people: force, power and conflict. It is used to show the people that an aggressive action is being taken. Similarly named, The War on Terror, implies conflict and the use of force against terrorists. Unlike the other rhetoric wars, the War on Terror is an actual war, though unconventional, against actual people.

Unfortunately, the declaration of war on terrorism seems to hamstring our efforts and our successes. If terrorists are not dead on the battlefield or being caught in the act of plotting terrorist attacks, then something is going wrong. In this case, a declaration of war necessitates military action and over shadows the other actions that Ambassador Walker argues need to be taken.

It seems easy to get tunnel vision in a war. It may be easier to bomb a suspected target than to build a school promoting democratic principles. It may be easier to detain suspected terrorists inevitably rather than subject them to our standards of rule of law.

In the War on Terror, we need some people to take off their blinders, ease their weapons out of the ready position and think about what else can be done aside from pulling the trigger that will accomplish the mission.

This is not to say military action is not needed, because it most certainly is. There are too many people willing to kill us if provided the opportunity to stop using force. But we cannot allow our rhetoric to dictate our actions. We are better than that and are capable of much more.

[Arthur Giovannangeli]

There are many problems with declaring a war on terror, the first and most glaring being how do you win? As Ambassador Walker said the people who become terrorists are tough to pick out because they are often provoked by extraordinary conditions, rather than a predisposition for violence. It would be impossible for the United States to eliminate or imprison every potential terrorist because there is simply no way of identifying all of them. Terrorist are also typically non-state actors and therefore it would be impossible defeat them by taking over their government or capital. The way America is currently fighting the war on terror is destined to result in failure, and is also playing into the terrorists’ hands, as the relish they though of America spending billions of dollars to hack off heads that will soon grow back. The only way America could have a chance in the war on terror is if they approach it less like a war and more like a world wide campaign. We must work with states to attack the roots of terrorism, extreme poverty, poor education ect., rather than reacting with force against the results of terrorism. As they say fighting violence with violence only breeds more violence and Iraq is a perfect example of how that rings true when dealing with terrorism. If America were to address the causes of terrorism and reduce the desperate conditions that drive people to commit acts of terror then they would have greater success at less financial cost and with less loss of life.

[Nathaniel Emmons]

The war on terror, like the war on drugs, is an ambiguous war that cannot be won by conventional means. It is not a war that America’s military or even intelligence community can win alone, and thus it puts unfair pressure on our military and CIA. America must fight the roots of terrorism, and must eliminate the causes and reasons why people turn to terrorism. America must work closely with other countries, listen to the complaints of Muslim populations, and eradicate terrorism at its roots. As Ambassador Walker illustrated, America must attempt to understand why middle class, well-educated people turn to terrorism and it is only after we comprehend this reason that we can try to eradicate the cause. In working closely with other countries, it is imperative that America and her allies create a concrete set of guidelines to deal with terrorists. Every time that France or Israel gives into the terrorist’s demands, our ability to fight terrorism is weakened because the world does not have a common strategy. Terrorism has also spread in popularity because it has been effective in almost every theatre, from Sri Lanka to Israel. The Palestinians exemplified the power of terrorism to gain world attention and as long as this remains true, terrorism will be an attractive way to gain international attention. America must deligitimize all forms of terrorism whether it is terrorism aimed against America or not. The US cannot sit idly by and persecute Al-Qaeda while it does nothing about the Tamil Tigers. To effectively win the war on terror, America must define terrorism and must erode the sense that terrorist tactics can be legitimate.
As America has seen since 9/11, the war on terror is not like any war America has fought before. In America’s attempts to combat terrorism, we have aided in its spread and attracted more followers to its movements. The war in Iraq has provided terrorists from all over the Muslim world with the perfect theatre to train and gain combat experience and become experts in terrorist tactics. After the Soviet-Afghan war, there was a large influx of veteran Muslim fighters back into their home countries from Jordan to the Philippines. This influx had numerous destabilizing effects on many Muslim countries and created fundamentalist movements designed to create radical Islamic governments. The return of veteran insurgents after the Iraq war will also have large destabilizing effects on many Muslim countries and will perpetuate the spread of terrorism. To minimize the effects of veteran insurgents it is imperative that America work with her allies and fight the roots of terrorism.

[Christie Sauve]

I agree with Ambassador Walker’s statement that “terrorism is a mechanism to gain attention for a cause that is being ignored by the world.” In today’s world we are engaged in a battle of ideas, both religious and political. Though many in this country and around the world have stated that there is a direct relationship between Islamic ideology and terrorism, this assessment is incorrect. Terrorism is not an ideology; rather, it is a mechanism or technique that is used to accomplish a particular end. Despite the United States’ overall mentality that this war on terrorism should be fought militarily, this solution fails to acknowledge the importance of understanding the enemy and their reasoning for resorting to terrorist actions. To fight this seemingly unsolvable war, the United States and other developed countries must continue to get at the root of the problem and discover why these regimes resort to such heinous and violent actions. By working towards a more peaceful coexistence with these countries, the United States and other countries around the world can ensure a more harmonious future.
Despite the negative sentiments and feelings towards the Muslim community after 9/11, the United States must put a stop to racial profiling as this makes matters worse and causes further violence and separation between the United States and the Middle East. If this country continues to use ethnicity, national origin, and religion as a basis for retaliation and police action, there will be a definite increase in the number of issues and problems between democratic nations and those under totalitarian regimes. Though it is tempting to fight violence with more violence, the United States must set aside its military might and use its intelligence and information gathering skills to dismantle the terrorist networks and prevent further attacks. As Ambassador Walker points out, terrorists are generally educated and become a member of these regimes because they feel powerless to evoke change on an individual basis. Therefore, the United States must offer an alternative path to these individuals and allow them to recognize peaceful alternatives to terrorism.

[Cliff McLean]

The events of September 11th 2001 without question had a serious impact on the well being of our nation. The events of this fateful day would change the way that terrorism was viewed throughout the global spectrum as well as in America. Terrorism did not come into being on September 11th, it did however, make our nation realize that we were not impervious to attack by rouges of this kind. By attacking America in such a heinous manner it did mark the beginning of the United State’s mission on combating terrorism. Thus in the months and the years that followed 9/11 the United States made a firm stand in saying that it would not go quietly. Rather America would combat all terrorist regimes and nations that supported their effort. However, although innocent civilians died on U.S. soil, America and its government are viewed by a majority of the global community as being at fault. Countries of the Middle east and abroad seem to forget that they were the ones to throw the initial blow. Nonetheless America has not and will not look for sympathy in regards to the war it is fighting against terrorism.
It is amazing how terrorism has the ability to attract normal people into carrying out attacks of this magnitude. As the United States continues to take steps towards reaching victory in this war it must consider the reasons why normal people are drawn towards committing acts of terror. The fact that ordinary people with a regular upbringing and education find terrorism appealing is something that is well beyond my realm of understanding. I totally agree that these individuals who enjoy the attention received by carrying out such events need to be reeducated. These people must come to the realization that their actions and what ensues is not the answer. Therefore America will, as it has continuously throughout its illustrious history, be successful in all aspects of this war on terror.

[Maureen O'Brien]

Terrorism is impossible to contain in the twenty-first century where weapons and chemical materials are available to anyone who tries to obtain them. The ease of weapons accessibility also means that all individuals, without the aide of an organization, can commit acts of terror. The inability to identify a specific enemy and to know how, when and with what weapons that enemy will strike is what makes terrorism so difficult to fight.

Various countries have attempted to design foreign policy strategies for combating terrorism, however, it is difficult to determine the successfulness of such plans. Does one simply validate victory on the basis of fewer attacks? It certainly does not seem like a reliable way to judge effectiveness. Additionally, countries tend to have their own methods for working with terrorists, meaning there is no uniform message sent to individual terrorists or organizations. With no consistent policy, countries are forced to take matters into their own hands and often give in to terrorist demands as a result of domestic pressure. Every time a country acquiesces to terrorists their actions are legitimized and, as Ambassador Walker says, “the fight has to be about delegitimizing the terrorists’ tactics whoever they are and whatever their cause.”

Terrorism continues to work because it gets the immediate attention of everyone around the world. Within minutes of a terrorist attack media outlets in every country are covering the story and questioning the motives behind it. The only way to effectively delegitimize terrorists is by educating the proponents of terrorism and providing them with alternatives. The reason terrorist organizations are popular is because they provide dissatisfied people with answers. We must give those people who are lost and in need of an affiliation other answers. Similarly, we must prove that terror tactics and the killing of innocent civilians do not sway political decisions or opinion. The most effective way to prove this is by providing the international community with a unified policy for fighting terrorism. Only by having a clear strategy with the rest of world, agreeing to not negotiate with terrorists and educating young people who are susceptible to terrorist propaganda will terrorism lose its legitimacy and appeal.

[Emma Woods]

The emphasis on achieving a “victory” in the war on terror creates the false sense that a military attack can provide the solution to the enduring problem of terrorism. Now that we are less than satisfied with what has been achieved through military options in Iraq, this is a good time to explore other options in achieving our goal of undermining the terrorist threat. It is above all true that we must make terrorism a less viable option for those most likely to turn to such tactics in pursuance of their goals. This means not just groups with “global reach,” but those wreaking havoc in their localized areas as well. Regardless of the cause or the size of the affected group, if terrorism is working anywhere, this success serves as an endorsement for any other groups looking for way to gain recognition and results. Why does terrorism work? Its namesake weapon – terror – is a powerful force when trying to get political recognition and response, especially in the case of seemingly powerless groups that can demand to be heard on the global stage by attracting some kind of attention and fear. In dealing with terrorism in the Muslim world, it is not just that we put too much emphasis on Islam, but that we see Islam itself as the problem. Islamic groups are not the first to use terrorism as an outlet for political expression, nor will they be the last. Just as you cannot say that all terrorists are Muslim, you cannot say that all Muslims are or support terrorists. If we make the mistake of equating the war on terror with a war on Islam, we are increasing the viability of terrorism. The perceived threat of an attack on Islam is the reason why many Muslims turn to terrorism in the first place, flocking toward extremists who promise to uphold pure Islam and vanquish the secularists who are trying to corrupt and destroy it. We must see that all religions have the power to be perverted and used to justify horrible wrongs against mankind – any history book will confirm this several times over. However, as we are willing to see with Christianity and not with Islam, religions have an equally strong power to unite groups of people under values such as peace, forgiveness, knowledge, and mutual respect. We must help respected religious and community leaders to reclaim Islam from the hands of the extremists who want to exploit the religiosity of those in the Muslim world and use them toward their own destructive goals. Providing “an alternative purpose and path” that utilizes Islam’s uniting qualities is one measure that we can take to undermine terrorism. Another is to take a step back from religious explanations of terrorism and look at purely political reasons for the grievances that many in the Muslim community have expressed. Much of the turmoil stems from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or other problems with nationalism, and we would be thus unwise to make a direct connection between terrorism and Islam.

[Sara Hessasta]

I agree with the ambassador on many of the key issues he discusses. Declaring a war based on 9/11 attacks is bringing confusion upon the type of war we are fighting. It is not a religious war, but people seem to forget this considering the majority of the public places blame upon the Islamic community it also puts tremendous pressure on a military solution. While America is fighting off these enemies the nation is essentially playing into their game dealing with and eliminating immediate conflicts while ignoring the bigger picture. This tactic will cause more and more conflicts to develop. The problem will not cease unless we get to the root of the situation. To find the solution, social and political communication should be initiated in order to draw an end to the conflict. If America maintains military pressures the countries will be fighting this war forever. As the ambassador states this gives the terrorists the initiative to attack and pull back at times and places of their choosing.

The ambassador also reiterates that terrorism is not a creation of Islam nor is the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Terrorism is a global issue which has been in place through out history. It can not be strictly defined as an organization with a global reach because as the ambassador states: there are those groups who don’t necessarily affect the community in a global context but are harmful domestically .Overall, for us to be apart of this war and help bring it to an end, taking away the legitimacy of the terrorists is key. Terrorists often come from educated backgrounds, but still feel hopeless when working to accomplish their goals and express their views. For this reason, they are more prone to giving into these organizations. Therefore, as the ambassador states: an alternative path must be found for them to take. This can be done through reeducating the people of these countries, but this is not the responsibility of the U.S. Islamic communities should take the incentive in reeducating and liberating people from the ludicrous preconceptions of the many societies and the means by which society conveys the messages of these conceptions. The only way this will work is by showing them that people are listening and listening to their concerns are actively being considered. There needs to be more active support of the Islamic community, in such issues like the Palestinian Israel conflict.

The ambassador also touches upon issues and possible sacrifices our country and allies must face. In order to take away the legitimacy of these terrorist groups we must stop them from achieving their goals. The ambassador discusses how we can no longer make negotiations with terrorists because while it would be beneficiary and eliminate immediate threats, it does nothing but show the terrorists that they are capable of achieving what they want and essentially playing into their game. This is possibly one of the hardest sacrifices America as a country must make. This may be one of the hardest aspects of eliminating terrorism.

[Katharine Steigerwald]

I do agree that education is a valid ultimate solution to resolving issues of terrorism. Education would enable us to eliminate the main causes or source of terrorist activity. Still, I am unsure about what type of policy western states could introduce to infiltrate and influence Islamic states to ensure people receive a strong, liberal education, one that would avoid teaching extremist Islam. Considering America is currently out of favor among many Middle Eastern states due to the situation in Iraq, I find it hard to believe that any terrorist-harboring states would be willing to open their doors to suggestions by America or other western states to amend education systems and curriculum, making them more liberal and accessible to all citizens. Additionally, curbing terrorism through education will be a timely process. It is dependent on vast and genuine social change. In the meantime states engaged in implementing policies to reduce the threat of terrorism will have to, as the blog reminds us, work at “delegitimizing the terrorists’ tactics.” Such fight comes as a high price and will be difficult to execute bearing in mind it would involve taking actions such as not paying ransoms to free citizens taken as hostages.

[Samantha Royes]

You make a terrific point in addressing how we should and should not respond to terrorism and terrorist tactics. However I think in actuality this is much more easily said than done. Fighting terrorism on a global scale and without biases is extremely difficult. The nations involved in this war against terrorism, have at their first priority protecting their own citizens. The primary reason for fighting terrorism has never been altruistic, and so nations can only be as involved as they imagine their individual threats to be. Because of this when there are hostages involved; the main response will not be to fight terrorism, but to try in any way possible to free the hostages. So how then should a nation address the issue of hostages, and threats to their citizenry? I think it would be very difficult for nations/ leaders to let their hostages fall to terrorism in an effort to not reward terrorist tactics. It is a very tough position that nations have to face in order to adopt an unbiased, and outcome generating response to terrorist tactics.

[Bevin Kenny]

The US needs to step back and recognize that the war isn’t stopping terrorists from doing what they want to. By bombing them we are acknowledging them, which is something they want. The more press they get the more legitimate they become enabling them to get their message out. No matter how long we fight the war on terror it will never end. There needs to be a better way for the US to approach this issue. The country and the world need to attack terrorism at the roots where it begins. Take weeds for example you can’t just pull them out of the ground you have to kill them at the roots so new weeds don’t emerge. Young terrorists, misguided by terrorism benefactors, can be snatched up before they turn towards terrorism. The international community needs stop the “birth” of new generations of terrorists by educating them and deterring them from terror activities.

[Boitumelo Sisulu]

A War on Terror?

Having succinct objectives and goals as well as a clear and identifiable threat, are integral components of a cohesive and effective war effort. This is part of what makes a war on terror particularly difficult- there is simply no mutually agreed upon definition of terrorism. Accordingly, waging a war on terrorism, in the absence of a clearly distinguishable target seems not only impractical but also improbable. This does not however, make the scope and consequent threat of terrorism any less real. Therefore, if we are to be able to successfully address what is most certainly a global challenge, it is imperative that we re-evaluate and adapt our approach so as to effectively deal with the causes, rather than the effects of terrorism.
In the wake of 9/11, the world was not only shocked and appalled at what had happened, but also empathized with the U.S. However, what the current administration failed to recognize then and has yet to acknowledge, is that the roots of terrorism run far deeper and longer than 9/11. The reason I say the world empathized, rather than sympathized with the U.S. is because, people all over the world experienced terrorism prior to and even after 9/11. They understood what it was like to be so brutally and seemingly unjustifiably attacked. The difference however, is that, for most of those people who had experienced the devastating effects of terrorism, the threat of an attack was (and often still is) an ever-present reality. This is not to discredit the destructive and demoralizing effects of 9/11 in any way, but rather, to illustrate how the current administration’s insistence on the international pertinence and urgency of the war on terror, only after the U.S. was attacked, worked to undermine the significance of the acts of terrorism that did not occur in or affect the U.S.
Accordingly, given the undeniably global nature and danger of terrorism, in garnering support and cooperation, it is essential that the U.S. adopt an approach that is inclusive of the international community. While those nations that host or sponsor terrorist activities or organizations should certainly be held accountable, they must also be included in the effort against terrorism, as this is the only way to begin to investigate and try to understand the causes of and motivations for terrorism.
It is also important to keep in mind that terrorism is by no means random, accidental, or coincidental, there’s always a reason. While the reason will likely vary depending on the place, and the particular political, social and economic situation, what is certain is that regardless of the reason, the point is to draw attention to particular cause or issue. The key here is to hone in on these issues and/or concerns, and thereafter actively pay, at least some, attention to the issues at hand. Thus, by narrowing and adapting our approach to the effort against terrorism, not only will we gain more credibility in vulnerable regions but perhaps we will be able to gain insight into common or reoccurring motivations and causes of terrorism. This, in turn, will enable us to be better able to take an offensive rather reactive approach.

[Sara Hessasta]

War on Terror

I agree with the ambassador on many of the key issues he discusses. Declaring a war based on 9/11 attacks is bringing confusion upon the type of war we are fighting. It is not a religious war, but people seem to forget this considering the majority of the public places blame upon the Islamic community it also puts tremendous pressure on a military solution. While America is fighting off these enemies the nation is essentially playing into their game dealing with and eliminating immediate conflicts while ignoring the bigger picture. This tactic will cause more and more conflicts to develop. The problem will not cease unless we get to the root of the situation. To find the solution, social and political communication should be initiated in order to draw an end to the conflict. If America maintains military pressures the countries will be fighting this war forever. As the ambassador states this gives the terrorists the initiative to attack and pull back at times and places of their choosing.

The ambassador also reiterates that terrorism is not a creation of Islam nor is the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Terrorism is a global issue which has been in place through out history. It can not be strictly defined as an organization with a global reach because as the ambassador states: there are those groups who don’t necessarily affect the community in a global context but are harmful domestically .Overall, for us to be apart of this war and help bring it to an end, taking away the legitimacy of the terrorists is key. Terrorists often come from educated backgrounds, but still feel hopeless when working to accomplish their goals and express their views. For this reason, they are more prone to giving into these organizations. Therefore, as the ambassador states: an alternative path must be found for them to take. This can be done through reeducating the people of these countries, but this is not the responsibility of the U.S. Islamic communities should take the incentive in reeducating and liberating people from the ludicrous preconceptions of the many societies and the means by which society conveys the messages of these conceptions. The only way this will work is by showing them that people are listening and listening to their concerns are actively being considered. There needs to be more active support of the Islamic community, in such issues like the Palestinian Israel conflict.

The ambassador also touches upon issues and possible sacrifices our country and allies must face. In order to take away the legitimacy of these terrorist groups we must stop them from achieving their goals. The ambassador discusses how we can no longer make negotiations with terrorists because while it would be beneficiary and eliminate immediate threats, it does nothing but show the terrorists that they are capable of achieving what they want and essentially playing into their game. This is possibly one of the hardest sacrifices America as a country must make. This may be one of the hardest aspects of eliminating terrorism.

[Rose Zourdos]

I agree that fighting terrorism is a daunting task and can never really be defined nor won, but it is an urgent problem that needs to be addressed. When dealing with terrorists the United States needs to explicitly make it clear that there is a distinction between the militant fundamentalists and the moderates, and we are not attacking Islam as a religion, we are attacking those terrorists who have waged a war upon us.

If we are going to fight terror then we have to invest the time and resources to combat terrorism and more importantly de-legitimize their cause. The best course of action the United States can take is to demoralize the terrorists, meaning, not withdrawing from Iraq and further legitimizing the terrorists’ claims of American weakness. At the same time we need to garner support from the international community to help us in fighting this war because terrorism is not only an American problem, it’s a global problem. By having countries like Germany and France, and even some Americans vehemently criticizing our role in Iraq and our fight against terror, they are undercutting our efforts. If the United States and the international community united to combat terrorism, sharing information, weapons, and troops then we will be giving a full-fledged effort to combat terror. If that entails enlisting the support and aiding those regimes which we are not found of, or that are not “democratic” then we have to commit the lesser evil in order to attain the greater good.

Another move the United States should take would be to have religious advisors in the state department and serve as ambassadors to those countries that are racked with religious strife. Those countries will take the United States seriously if they see us taking an active role in understanding their cause, their religion, their dilemma. That can only be achieved by having those advisors with the knowledge and expertise of Islam.

I also think that education is the key to preventing terrorism and giving people who are frustrated and angry the knowledge of alternatives. The West is stigmatized by many in the Middle East and if we can disprove the terrorists’ claim of how deplorable America is and at the same time illustrate the benefits of democratic liberties then there is a chance of reaching those young people before they turn to radical fundamentalism.

[Sam Morgan]

Terrorism is a means to an end. Utilized by non-state actors as a means of inflicting damage both physically and psychologically on a global scale, terrorism is highly effective. It is effective not only because it is inexpensive but because the smallest acts of terrorism carry large psychological implications. Media today is so far-reaching and global in scope that small attacks by terrorist factions can ripple through the news, finding their way into the homes of millions, thus multiplying the effectiveness of their actions. Combating the problem of terrorism is a task commonly oversimplified. In theory you would try and weed out the terrorist cells as the military and intelligence agents have attempted, but as you have suggested in your post, you have to attack the root of the problem, which is disdain for others, namely the West. Unlike other ideas which we have tried to combat such as Communism, waging war on a military tactic is almost impossible. Educating these men who take it upon themselves to engage terrorism against democratic nations is a possible solution, but is difficult in execution. Our best option to slow the damage caused globally by terrorism might be to cease giving terrorists ready targets. If we can convince people that our intentions are not malicious but are for the creation of freedom and liberty where there was once just tyranny we can possibly remove the basis of their hatred: the justification for terrorism.

[Andrew Small]

While many think that the war on terror is an individual battle for each country, people need to understand that terrorism is a global issue. Yes, the U.S. has had to suffer through such horrific acts as September 11th, which has now turned into the war in Iraq, but terrorist acts constantly occur in other countries as well. Terrorism can simply not be attacked by individual countries, fighting for their individual freedom; rather, global intervention is more than necessary. To be honest, I agree with the fact and feel that war on terror is not something that is black and white; it can not just be beaten.
The people of the world need to be educated so that they can understand the true operations of terrorism and why they continue to occur. Without some sort of educating on terrorism, people simply feel that is an individual threat and that only they and their country are getting attacked. That is not the case. The war on terror has created a direct link between terrorism and the Islam. Terrorist acts continue to be blamed on those who practice Islam, and even pushes the limit of discrimination to further levels. We need to understand that terrorism is a global issue. People need to understand why and how particular terrorist acts occur. Education on terrorism is quite possibly the only ‘next step’ in fighting the war on terror. It will only promote people to actually think globally, rather than sticking to their guns that only particular individuals are suffering. War on terror needs to be curtailed and without the help of the world as a whole, it simply will not be solved.

[Gregory Rogan]

This blog posting about the U.S war on terror raises many good points which I agree with. One of the problems with the U.S aggression against terrorism is that 'terrorism' or 'terrorist' was not defined specifically enough. It appears that the course of action taken was not completely thought through, perhaps a result of America flexing its muscles in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
It is important to understand that terrorism, and specifcally terrorism in the middle east, exists for a reason. These people, as the Ambassador points out, are using terrorism to bring attention to something which could not have been addressed through their respective governmets. Terrorism is their tool for international attention.
Finally, in understanding that the terrorist organizations include very intelligent and well educated men and women, we must realize that military efforts are not going to win the war alone. The most effective way for the U.S to be successfull in its war on terrorism is through education. This education does not have to come in a western sence of education. By winning the minds of those that are still up for winning, will result in a decrease in support for terrorist organizations. What I mean here is teaching people the difference in right and wrong. Teaching the Arabs tha the Koran does not accept suicide, nor the killing of an other man. If we can educate, and education through religion may be the most effective way, the people of the Arab world to see the wrong doing's of terrorism, then the root of the problem has been addressed