America can use various methods in combating terrorism, including deterrence and military retaliation, but of the two, military retaliations is way better than deterrence. Deterrence is a strategy used by a state under terrorist threats of attacks to instill fear and threaten terrorists from engaging in terror acts. For example, the US may threaten to prosecute and convict terror suspects if found guilty, as a way to make them deescalate from combative actions. In contrast, military retaliation involves deploying military personnel to terrorism hotspots or drive terrorist from areas they have claimed.
The credibility of using deterrence is limited based on the nature terrorists respond to warnings or threats. It may be effective if terrorists give in to the threats, which is often less guaranteed (Frey, 2017). In most scenarios, terrorists rarely back down following threats. Instead, they increase combative action, and if a country, the US, for example, sticks to deterrence policy, the country may incur more costs. A country that chooses to use deterrence is likely to resort to repressive means especially if the public turns against the deterrence approach. Deterrence may also improve terrorist cohesiveness and may exacerbate xenophobia and nationalism. Besides, deterrence relies on police, military, and various secret service, but since it is often secretive, it becomes difficult to measure the costs and enforce accountability.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On the contrary, military retaliation is the most common method used by major world powers, including the US. The use of military retribution is more effective in combating terrorism based on the following reasons. Military attacks against terrorist works in the favor of country because it directly weakens he terrorist action through casualties, destruction, and eviction. This approach denies terrorists time to strategize and strike back. Besides, most terrorist activities have backing, which necessitates combative methods that destabilize them (Silke, 2003). It is also easier to account for the costs of military retribution because activities like combating terrorism are always solely assigned to the military unlike deterrence that involves secrete agencies and even police. Conclusively, military retribution is the most effective method of combatting terrorism compared to deterrence because of accountability, and lower costs, as mentioned in the essay’s body.
References
Silke, A. (2003). Retaliating against terrorism. Terrorists, victims and society: Psychological perspectives on terrorism and its consequences , 215-231.
Frey, S. B., (2017). Countering Terrorism: Deterrence vs More Effective Methods. https://doi.org/10.1515/openec-2017-0002
