Terrorism is the premeditated threat or use of violence by subnational groups or individuals to achieve a social or political objective through intimidation or manipulation of large populations beyond its effect on the immediate non-combat victims. The two significant ingredients of terrorism are its social or political motive and its violence. Terrorists often use shockingly violent actions such as the armed attack in public areas, beheadings, bombing public markets or events, and the downing of commercial planes to intimidate a certain audience ( Roberts, 2015) . Their horrific and unpredictable attacks are meant to make Americans or other people to feel threatened or at risk although the chances of an attack occurring are minimal. Terrorists desire to forego normal paths of political change by traumatizing the audience through horrific acts so that the national governments are compelled to meet the demands of the terrorists or divert public funds aimed at hardening potential targets. The essay will evaluate how to combat future terrorism and how the current methods of combating affect the country.
International and Domestic Terrorism
Between 2001 and 2009, there were about 91 domestic terrorist attacks against the US and about 380 international terrorist attacks against the US. However, there has been no terrorist attack by a foreign terrorist organization in the US since 9/11. Since 9/11, there have been 28 deadly terrorist attacks in the US, but not one was committed by foreigners. However, most people in the US believe that terrorism is reserved for foreigners, but the narrative may be wrong ( Manwaring, 2014) . Domestic tourism poses a greater threat to the US than international terrorism. Since 9/11, there have been about 380 jihadist terrorism in the US since 9/11, and in 80% of the situations, the suspects were legal residents and US citizens.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Homegrown terrorism often refers to acts of terrorism undertaken by a country's own citizens. Although it is often used to describe different Islamic extremist threat, homegrown acts of terrorism are not pegged to a specific ideological background. Out of the 28 homegrown terrorist acts since 9/11, about 18 were committed by right-wing extremists such as the mass shooting in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Despite the kind of terrorist attacks, right-wing or jihadist, an overwhelming majority of the recent terrorist attacks were committed by suspects born in the US ( Martin, 2017). 63% of all individuals arrested for terrorism in the US were born in the US while the rest were naturalized citizens, illegal residents, legal residents, on a temporary visa, a refugee, and only 44 cases were unknown. However, the correct data on right-wing terrorism has been dwarfed by the government because they do not always refer to it as terrorism. Jihadist terrorism refers to violent extremism that is often motivated by terrorist organizations such as ISIS and Al-Qaida.
Strategies to Prevent Future Terrorist Attacks
One of the strategies includes preventing the immediate attack. The potential of terrorist groups such as ISIS to recruit agents within the US could be devastating. To solve the potential threats in the short term, the US should keep guns out of terrorists’ hands, protect local communities, and prevent potential terrorists from entering the country. The local agencies should be fully funded, prepared, trained, and coordinated to protect the country against all terrorist organizations ( Levi, Halliday, & Reuter, 2014) . The US should also destroy ISIS and Al-Qaida affiliated groups abroad to move towards regional stability and secure national interests. America should assist local ground forces Syria, increase airstrikes, and enforce a no-fly zone if the Syrian peace talks collapse. The country should also assist Syria and Iraq to build local capacity to fight terrorist organizations that threaten global peace.
Due to the increased homegrown terrorism in the US, the country should focus on reducing radicalization in the country. The short-term plans of destroying ISIS and Al-Qaida should be complemented by long term efforts that will address domestic threats facing the country. ISIS has had a successful online radicalization process for recruiting potential terrorists. ISIS is estimated to have about 30000 foreign terrorists recruited from about 100 countries. Long-term policies should involve local partnerships top destroy terrorist organizations. The future long-term strategy should address what happens after the terrorist organizations are defeated. The US should support a peaceful transition in Iraq and Syria especially in countering extremist propaganda, governance, and security within the region. The US should force Syria and Iraq to have inclusive policies to prevent sectarian divides such as the alienation of Kurdish and Sunni populations ( Manwaring, 2014) . Although ISIS may continue or endure through some of its fragmented groups, their impact should be minimized.
Socio-economic Strategies to Combat Terrorism
All the new counter-terrorism strategies need one time investments that involve short to midterm increases in boosting businesses. The costs should be viewed as investments that will provide benefits by increasing trade efficiency and reducing risk premiums. Other than reducing the locals’ exposure to terrorism, socioeconomic strategies will improve trade flows, boost cargo handling, and enhance movement of people. Moreover, it will boost global and regional growth. Prosperity and expansion will allow organizations and nations to invest in economic development activities and policies that will expand the middle class and create opportunities in communities that have traditionally acted as breeding grounds for terrorist groups. When the local population appreciates the economic advantages of peace, they are highly likely to work to prevent local support for all terrorist organizations ( Roberts, 2015) . The country should identify all potential terrorist sanctuaries and inhibit them from developing into operational grounds for some terrorist groups.
A comprehensive counterterrorism strategy should comprise of economic policies that promote opportunities for better living, encourage development, and open societies. Investing and sustaining growth in the poorest regions requires cooperation and creativity. The affected countries should pool capabilities and resources to solve the terrorist threats. The cooperation should include cross-disciplinary organizations such as private businesses, the United Nation, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and governmental militaries and agencies. However, socioeconomic development alone cannot eliminate terrorism ( Hoffman, 2013) . The country should seek ways of alleviating poverty especially for people who live at the bottom of the economic pyramid. Such plans should involve the poor, private firms, civil organizations, and governments. The efforts should first identify the immediate needs of the local population, come up with local solutions, and the various partners should partner with the local population to implement the plans by providing resources, experience, and skills.
Constitutional Amendments and Legislation to Combat Future Terrorism
Future constitutional amendments and legislation may be used to prevent future terrorism such as the Patriot Act. However, terrorism is an issue of national security instead of just criminal law enforcement. The debate about certain antiterrorism laws mainly lies on the incomplete understanding of particular principles in the constitution and the over-judicialization of policy and political factors. The national leaders have a significant responsibility of securing the country from all foreign and domestic threats ( Hoffman, 2013) . The preamble to the constitution makes a significant statement that the constitution was established to offer a common defense and insure domestic tranquility. The government should not only account for the power of national security that is granted to citizens but also the national security power bestowed on the national government to take action against all people who may cause insecurity on US soil.
The questions raised about the current terrorist threats in the country require a proper understanding of the constitution. There should be a proper balance between when to exercise the powers and ensuring that the powers do not invade or infringe the civil liberties. Since the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon and world trade center, the general public and media have urged law enforcement, intelligence, and counterintelligence agencies to improve their ability to discover and prevent terrorist plans before they occur. The criticism has always been rendered on the government’s failure to gain enough intelligence ( Caterson et al., 2013) . However, when the government develops intelligence programs that will assist them to collect intelligence, most Americans feel that the government may accumulate unwarranted power over their privacy. The reaction may act contrary to the desire for improved security but the actions of the national government in times of security crises is not unique in the post 9/11 era. The US government has a history of abuses of power during times of war.
The war against terrorism has taken a fundamental shift after more than a century. The country is not fighting an enemy who is an ocean way but an enemy who lives within the country. The war against terrorism may be long term issues but few Americans will tolerate infringement of civil liberties as the ultimate price of public safety. Most analysts believe that the issues are irresolvable because security is being balanced against civil liberties. Any security improvement results in the diminution of civil liberties and vice versa. The use of surveillance has limited support, but it was essential in locating Al Haramain, an Islamic charity group founder, who was one of the people funding al-Qaida ( Levi, Halliday, & Reuter, 2014) . Although technology is available for use by the federal, local, and state governments, it is important to evaluate the ethical and legal aspects of the use of surveillance technology.
According to the evaluation of 9/11 and its aftermath, the Patriot Act may be essential for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The agency lawfully allows a search, seizure, and surveillance to defend the US from terrorist acts. In the absence of the Patriot Act, there may be many unforeseen events that may have devastating effects such as 9/11. Improving the government, Intel can disrupt terrorist networks and eliminate terrorist threats. The government should destroy the online presence of terrorist groups especially on social media ( Hoffman, 2013) . The terrorist recruits can be arrested to prevent radicalization and acts of terrorism. There should be a proper screening of citizens to ensure they are not radicalized by terrorist groups. However, it should be acknowledged that there must be ethical implications of surveillance and the actions are aimed at the greater good of the citizens.
Currently, the federal government does not need additional powers to protect the country. Therefore, the DHS and the current laws are sufficient. Granting additional powers to the federal government could stir panic and fear within the general population because of the history of the federal government during wars ( Manwaring, 2014) . The law enforcement powers of the federal government should not be limitless. The federal government has special powers in national security to offer a common defense and insure domestic tranquility.
Future Terrorism in the Country
The frequency of domestic terrorism in the US is highly likely to increase because of right-wing extremists. President Trump issued an executive order that banned immigration from certain Muslim majority countries from entering the country and claimed that it would protect Americans from radical Islamic terrorists. However, 11 months after he signed the executive order, more Americans have lost their lives in attacks by white American men in comparison to foreigners or Muslim terrorists. It is a fact that the country faces a threat from Al-Qaida and ISIS-affiliated groups. For instance, the Orlando, Florida mass shooting where 49 people died and 53 injured after a man who was radicalized by ISIS shot people ( Caterson et al., 2013) . Between 2001 and 2015, more Americans lost their lives by homegrown right-wing extremist that Muslim terrorist. President Trump's first speech at the Congress claimed that most of the convicted people in terrorism-related offenses were either immigrants or people parents were immigrants.
However, none of the main terrorist attacks in the US over the past 15 years originated from the countries that had been banned from entering the US. The San Bernardino shooting that 14 people lost their lives was an American born US citizen who had a Pakistani descent. The Orlando nightclub shooter was a US-born citizen of an afghan citizen, the Boston Marathon bombers were ethnic Chechen, and the attempted Times Square Bomber was a Pakistani-American. According to statistics, the average chance of an American citizen to lose their lives due to terrorist attacks by immigrants in a given year is about one to 3.6 million ( Levi, Halliday, & Reuter, 2014) .
Conclusion
The essay has evaluated how to combat future terrorism and how the current methods of combating affect the country. The country is facing increased terrorism threat from homegrown terrorism. Terrorism is the premeditated threat or use of violence by subnational groups or individuals to achieve a social or political objective through intimidation or manipulation of large populations beyond its effect on the immediate non-combat victims. The country faces a greater threat from domestic or homegrown terrorism than international terrorism. Homegrown terrorism often refers to acts of terrorism undertaken by a country’s own citizens. Some of the strategies include preventing the immediate attack and ensuring that local agencies are fully funded, prepared, trained, and coordinated to protect the country against all terrorist organizations. Socioeconomic strategies are vital in combating terrorism. Prosperity and expansion will allow organizations and nations to invest in economic development activities and policies that will expand the middle class and create opportunities in communities that have traditionally acted as breeding grounds for terrorist groups ( Caterson et al., 2013) . Constitutional amendments and legislation should be used to combat future terrorism, but it should not come at the expense of civil liberties. The federal government has adequate power to combat terrorism. Homegrown terrorism is likely to increase because of right-wing extremist, and the government should have proper measures that will control the situation.
References
Caterson, E. J., Carty, M. J., Weaver, M. J., & Holt, E. F. (2013). Boston bombings: a surgical view of lessons learned from combat casualty care and the applicability to Boston’s terrorist attack. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery , 24 (4), 1061-1067.
Hoffman, B. (2013). Al Qaeda's Uncertain Future. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism , 36 (8), 635-653.
Levi, M., Halliday, T., & Reuter, P. (2014). Global surveillance of dirty money: assessing assessments of regimes to control money-laundering and combat the financing of terrorism.
Manwaring, M. G. (2014). Insurgency, terrorism, and crime: Shadows from the past and portents for the future (Vol. 5). University of Oklahoma Press.
Martin, G. (2017). Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, perspectives, and issues . SAGE publications.
Roberts, A. (2015). Terrorism research: Past, present, and future. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism , 38 (1), 62-74.
