Problem Definition
The real-world policy issue selected is the United States government policy on war and terror. It is an American led global counter-terrorism campaign launched in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks. The terrorist attacks have been hailed as the mark of a momentous occasion on the war against violent extremism, compelling many Americans to arrive at a consensus to combat terrorism a top national security priority (Ingram, 2016). The United States has waged this war on terrorism against the backdrop of more traditional geopolitical concerns (Collis, 2013). While the policy components adopted by the United States on the war on terror have been generally effective, more time and some material reinforcement are required if success is to be realized on this front.
Issue Analysis
There are economic challenges associated with terrorism, which transcend beyond the allocations incorporated in the government budgets to fund a war against terrorism. The related events which accompany the global war on terror, beginning in Afghanistan and creating a ripple effect in the Middle East, has been the source of adverse effects both at home and abroad. For example, the Iraqi invasion has been blamed for the rise in oil prices worldwide, which translates into high costs of production and movement of goods and services. Additionally, the budgetary allocations created by the United States government in the war on terror has created loopholes for bureaucratic fraud (Ingram, 2016). For example, some prosecutors have been accused of inflating the statistics of terrorism convictions to obtain higher allocations of the budget.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The United States has made significant gains in combating terrorism. The centrally organized terrorist group responsible for the 9/11 attacks, for example, has been reduced to incoherence (Rollins & Wyler, 2013). There is a government in Afghanistan, thanks to United States military involvement (Collins, 2013). In addition, the government has been injecting $23 Billion into the Middle East economy per year, to help reconstruct the society and maintain order (Meierrieks & Gries, 2013). The challenge the United States policymakers have to deal with is to find a way to consolidate the gains made in the Middle East while finding a way to subjugate the terrorist threat faced by Taliban.
Proposed Solutions
To maintain the achievements realized in dealing with terrorism, Rollins & Wyler (2013) recommend measures that are both reconstructive and consolidative in nature (p.51). Collins (2013) argues the American government may find it useful to give more power to the U.S. ambassador in Kabul to oversee the administration's entire strategy in Afghanistan. He reckons that ‘localizing' the fight will provide solutions which resonate with the culture and structure of the Afghani, and such an approach may be implemented as a pilot program for the rest of the Middle East countries. Rollins & Wyler (2013), also recommends an adoption of a unilateral approach, such as an all-out war on the terrorist groups, or complete withdrawal of troops so as to focus on home security (p.49). Although he contends the financial costs of the former could be prohibitive, he justifies his recommendations by asserting that violent Islamist groups which survived Al Qaeda still pose a danger (Rollins & Wyler 2013). The solutions to the current issues in the Middle East countries, which host terrorist groups, lies in consolidating the gains made, reducing the costs incurred while maintaining a firm stance to prevent a repeat of 9/11.
Strategic Recommendations
Recommended Courses of Action
According to Ingram, in order to be successful in the war against terrorism, Washington will be required to empower the Ambassador in Kabul to oversee its overall counterterrorism strategy in Afghanistan (Ingram, 2016). The United States embassy in Taliban should be tasked with persuading the Pakistani government to pursue the goal of eliminating the terrorist organizations which are direct threats to the prosperity and existence of the United States (Ingram, 2016). The motivation behind this cause of action, Ingram (2016) argues, will be to ensure that there is localization in the approach in the fight against terrorism by the United States government (p. 143). Afghanistan, Palestine, and Iran have been earmarked as the hub of terrorist organizations which have posed a significant danger to the United States, and it is only logical if efforts to curb terrorism are centered on these Middle East countries.
Empowering the envoy in Kabul and in the rest of the identified Middle East countries will be an important precursor to the establishment of a long-lasting open partnership with Afghanistan in the fight against terrorism. Collins (2013) reckons that Washington's primary issue of concern, counterterrorism, should be made central to any potential engagement with the Afghan government (p. 49). Consequently, making the fight against terrorism a priority for both the United States and the respective governments will provide useful information and intelligence which will be useful in counter-terrorism (Rollins & Wyler 2013). Formulation of an enduring counterterrorism partnership between the U.S government and the local Middle East governments will also offset some of the economic costs incurred in the fight against terrorism (Ingram, 2016). Localizing the fight against terrorism will enhance cooperation between security agencies involved, which is crucial to the success of U.S counterterrorism policy.
Collins also reckons that the United States should seek to integrate the Taliban into the political system of the Afghan government, although he cautions it is an untested and unproven course of action. Pursuing reconciliation with the Taliban, and their consequent incorporation into the government may provide a remedy for the existing political turmoil in Afghanistan, hence maintaining and securing interests of the United States vis-à-vis transnational terrorist groups. According to Ingram (2016), the relationship of these terrorist organizations with the Taliban range from breakable, as in the case with Al-Qaeda, to oppose, for example, the Islamic State (p. 142). The United States has to formulate policies that will allow it to continue with its counterterrorism goals while pursuing the political settlement with the Taliban groups to precipitate a major political crisis.
Ingram maintains that the home threat due to terrorism has grown exponentially over the years (Ingram, 2016). A strategy of competing for disengagement, so that the existing resources are used to fight terrorist threats within the borders of the United States, would represent the polar opposite of major escalation. Collins argues, however, that implementation of the course of action would result into a complete collapse of the Afghan government, resulting into a recrudescence of radical groups within the country (Collins, 2013). It could be a move that makes sense, given the high costs associated with the existing status quo, and that the Afghan government will eventually collapse anyway. The dependency on the existing state of affairs in the Middle East is linked with the need to ensure organized terror groups, responsible for the 9/11 attacks, do not get chances to mushroom.
Weaknesses and Limitations
From the proposed solutions, there exist glaring weaknesses in the formulation of the overall counterterrorism policy by the American government. The Taliban sanctuary in Afghanistan has to be dealt with more resolutely than ever before. A major military escalation in form of a sizeable increase in the U.S and the allied forces deployed and more intensive operation is a crucial requirement to the success of the operation against terrorist groups (Collins, 2013). Such involvement will require additional costs not to mention the past failures of such an approach. The current demands of nation-building at home demand a higher level of attention, hence the limitation of taking such a move.
Embracing the strategy of complete disengagement will also be potentially hazardous to the survival of the Afghan government, which wholly depends on the support of the United States (Collins, 2013). Such an eventuality would result in a return to the anarchy of the Afghan society, or the rise of anti-American violent extremist groups. The policy of disengagement, while it might be cost saving in the short-term, could produce greater terrorism threats to the United States homeland (Collins, 2013). In hindsight, the current strategy is generally effective but requires more time and some material reinforcement.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Measured Expenditures
The bulk of the expenditures to date on the Global War on Terror have been for military activities in Afghanistan and Iraq, which makes it easy to calculate the federal government costs in the main components on the war on terror (Meierrieks & Gries 2013). According to Meierrieks & Gries (2013), the outlays measured include the outlays by the government and local governments, and the contributions by private companies as well (p. 145). The motivations behind the contributions by the private sector are for taking necessary measures to protect themselves against the risk of terrorist actions.
Secondary Outlays and Incentive effects
These are costs which occur because actions taken in the war on terror have a bearing in a range of non-terror related activities (Meierrieks & Gries 2013). For example, 20 to 40 percent of the increase in world oil prices since early 2003 has been the result of an increase in perceived risk due to the war in Iraq, combined with a reduction in anticipated production from Iraq's oil fields. Costs such as these can also have important disincentive effects, leading to expansion of the national security bureaucracy and resulting instances of waste, inefficient decision-making and fraud (Meierrieks & Gries 2013). The war on terror has created a ripple effect in the finances allocated to government departments, opening avenues for possible manipulation.
Imputed Costs
These are financial bearings due to lost output due to death and injury, both physical and emotional, from combat operations (Meierrieks & Gries 2013). The loss in production over the lives of the military personnel is substantial since many of them are young. For example, during the response to the Katrina Hurricane disaster, local National Guard units were severely understaffed due to Iraq War-related fatalities (Meierrieks & Gries 2013). Additionally, effects of political changes brought about as part of, or in response to, the war on terror is another area imputed costs may be found. The United States government standing has been severely hampered due to its involvement in the War in Iraq, and detentions in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib (Meierrieks & Gries 2013). While such actions are hard to quantify, they can be seen as potentially diminishing to the collective welfare.
References
Collins, J. J. (2013). Understanding the War in Afghanistan: A Guide to the Land, the People, and the Conflict . Skyhorse Publishing, Inc
Ingram, A. (2016). Spaces of security and insecurity: Geographies of the war on terror . Routledge.
Meierrieks, D., & Gries, T. (2013). Causality between terrorism and economic growth. Journal of Peace Research , 50 (1), 91-104.
Rollins, J., & Wyler, L. S. (2013). Terrorism and transnational crime: Foreign policy issues for Congress (Vol. 1). Congressional Research Service.
