Terrorism is one of the threats the Unites States has been fighting for years now. Following the 2001 terror attack, the instability and unpreparedness of the United States in fighting and combating terrorism was laid bare. However, the government since then has made steps to completely eradicate terrorism. While different presidents have since then deployed various mechanisms to combat this problem, the United States citizens are certain about their safety. However, the different approaches used to fight terrorism raise questions worth reviewing.
Following the attack, the government lodged military attacks on their enemies. This strategy involves searching and completely destroying terrorist organizations and killing individual terrorists. We have seen the intensive fight against Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden which led to his death. People like Muammar el-Qaddafi, former president of Libya was also eliminated by the United States after he was linked with Al Qaeda ( Thrall & Goepner, 2017) . This is a very violent approach that stirs war among nations and countries. Another approach the United States has adopted is the establishment of Homeland Security department to deal with terrorist attacks by providing intelligence information about terrorists as well as plan and wedge counter attacks. Homeland Security approach is rather quiet and systematic approach which does not risk the lives of many people in the process (Sunstein, 2005) . It involves identifying the terrorist group, modes of operation, their intentions, sources of finance, government support, and the kind of weapons they have. As such, they are able to find measures to protect the US against any attacks from cyber, to the chemical weapons used by terrorists.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In my view, relying on the Homeland security department is a better approach compared to militarizing all terrorist operations. One of the drawbacks with militarizing security operations is that it only worsens things. The inversion of Iran, Afghanistan, and the US supported war on Yemen has created more chaos than solve the problems it intended. This has given more room for terrorists to operate.
The different levels of government are involved at different levels in combating terrorism. The Federal, state, and local government are all involved in ensuring that the problem of terrorism is combated. The federal government is involved in the overall process of overseeing the process of combating terrorism. On the other, the state and local government are involved at different levels by adhering to the policies made by the federal government.
The federal government is responsible for military, diplomatic and intelligence policy and giving directives to the departments that are vested with the role of combating terrorism. It is involved in formulating the strategic plan for combating terrorism ( Turzanski, 2007) . This includes developing plans and programs to deal with the existing threats, known weaknesses of the terrorists, and the domestic terrorist targets. The federal government is the only body that can decide the national policy on terrorism by being more offensive than defensive. It is the only body that can design policies and standards to guard against and fight attacks by terrorists. Similarly, it is the only body that can generate the funds and supply all the resources required in the fight against terrorism ( Turzanski, 2007) .
Terrorism has been a wound to the United States. It has caused headache and to the government because of its adverse effects. Although different approaches have been used to combat terrorism, a more diplomatic way is rather suitable since it does not seek to cause violence and more deaths. Militarizing terrorism operations as has been seen, stimulates more violence and exposes the country to more threats. However, the federal state is mandated with the task of setting up policies that protect against terrorism.
References
A. Trevor Thrall and Erik Goepner. (2017, June 26). Step Back: Lessons for U.S. Foreign Policy from the Failed War on Terror. Retrieved from https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/step-back-lessons-us-foreign-policy-failed-war-terror
Cass R. Sunstein. (2005). Essay: On the Divergent American Reactions to Terrorism and Climate Change. Retrieved from https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=12272&context=journal_articles
Edward A. Turzanski. (2007). Counterterrorism: The Roles of Federal, State and Local Agencies - Foreign Policy Research Institute. Retrieved from https://www.fpri.org/article/2007/01/counterterrorism-the-roles-of-federal-state-and-local-agencies/
