1.0 Introduction
The September 11, 2001 terror attacks saw the loss of lives of an estimated 3,000 Americans. Thousands of other citizens have also lost lives because of the subsequent military interventions that have been undertaken by the United States to fight against terrorism to keep the US safe. 17 years later and America continue with the fight against the spread of terrorism. Terrorism remains as one of the top security concerns of the United States due to the self-declared enemies of America who pursue all opportunities they get to cause harm, destroy property, and kill innocent people. This reveals that the United States is among the countries that are highly targeted by the terror criminal groups including the religious extremist groups in the MENA region. Addressing security concerns related to terror becomes a primary concern of the government as it works towards keeping America’s homeland safe of attacks and threats by the criminal organizations.
The policy question of focus in this study reads, “There are different anti-terrorism policies that have been formulated and implemented in the past; what policy option would effectively combat terror threat against the American citizens? Addressing this policy question is critical to the United States due to ts interests of developing a safe and secure country for its people. The American interest is to ensure that the homeland is safe and secure, and that its people positioned in different parts of the world are safe and secure. America has great interests in promoting a safe and secure business and social environment by which its people work, trade and make a living(Neumann, 2013). On this basis, addressing the issues of terrorism through developing the right policy option is a necessity for the agencies tasked with the responsibility of protecting the people. In this study, different policy options would be analyzed with the researcher establishing policy one on countering radicalization as the best option for successful anti-terrorism campaign. A policy on countering radicalization of terrorism would play a major role in dealing with the symptoms of terrorism but unearthing the roots to terrorism.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
2.0 Background Facts
Seventeen years ago, the then United States president — President George W. Bush declared war against terrorism. This was after the September 11 attack where he pledged that America would not relent until every terrorist was defeated. The US president then communicated to the nations that either they stand with America or they are with the terrorists (McBride, 2011). The willingness of the government at the time saw the president take a number of bills to the congress that saw the establishment of the department of homeland affairs that was in charge of various security agencies. Many years after that, the efforts to make counterterrorism sustainable have been instituted by consequent governments. A greater emphasis was put on creating international partnerships with other nations in the war against terrorism. The focus on taking on this strategy was intended to minimize the costs of counterterrorism and make gains in fighting terrorism. As at now, there is great need for the development of new and better counterterrorism policy options that could be adopted by the security agencies tasked with the role of protecting the citizens against terror threats and attacks.
In order to fight against terrorism effectively, it became necessary for the government to revise and update policies aimed at countering terror attacks and threat. This was necessary considering the fact that effectiveness in fighting terrorism greatly required for the development and enforcement of appropriate policies that fight terror (Kundnani, 2012). Effectiveness and sustainability in combating terror crimes and potential attacks demands for the enactment of better policies that are responsive to the changes in the tact that terrorists employ. Terrorist often would employ new tact and strategies in order to make successful attacks and counter counterterror measures that have been executed against them. It is on this basis that it becomes paramount for the security agencies to be flexible in developing the policy frameworks for dealing with terrorists. A lot of work has to be done in developing the right policies and selecting the best policy option that would have a greater good over the others. The focus of this research is to analyze four-policy option on counterterrorism and select an appropriate one for execution.
3.0 Policy Options
Considering the security state of the nation, the United States has a number of policy options that it may undertake to solve the threats of terror attacks. In this regard, the researcher establishes four major policy options that may be undertaken to address the problem.
3.1 Countering radicalization Policy
The first policy option is that of countering radicalization of civilians into terror groups and terrorism. One of the ways, terrorism is propagated from one generation to the other is through radicalization of people, a process that is conducted by leaders of terrorist groups. Radicalization of people into terrorism and religious extremism is a process that happens in various platforms. Activities of radicalizing the youths who are main targets of terrorists takes place through avenues such as the internet platforms such as the email and social media pages. They also happen in the prison facilities where the imprisoned terrorists get to radicalize other inmates who are in the prison facilities (Irwin, 2015).Radicalization also happens in the neighborhoods both within and outside US terrorists. Radicalization has also been said to take place in the religious worship centers especially in the MENA region where religious extremists would use the mosque as an avenue to reach out and radicalize people.
Radicalization is the heart of terrorism and the reason why this policy option should be undertaken. The focus of taking on this policy is to develop mechanisms that could contain radicalization of people locally and externally from joining or engaging in terrorist activities. The development and execution of this policy is critical in the process of dealing with the threats of radicalization and homegrown terrorism. Developing this policy would require the security agencies to adopt a number of a counter-radicalization strategy and a corresponding strategic implementation plan. Handling radicalization of different types of terrorists in and outside the US would call for a deeper understanding through intelligence on the way terrorists engage in radicalizing the youths.
This policy reform would also need to address 'virtual safe-havens' provided by the internet and social media companies. The policy would involve increased partnerships with communications technology companies in the war against radicalization. This approach would be necessary considering the latest move by many terrorist organizations to radicalize youths by spreading propaganda and identifying vulnerable people who can easily be recruited. Therefore, this policy option would involve identifying thetools that terror group leaders use to inspire, radicalize, and recruit vulnerable individuals for the purposes of executing their attacks (Hoffman, 2006). The execution of this policy option would involve the Office of Terrorism Prevention Partnerships (OTPP). This office prioritizes education and community awareness aimed at helping communities recognize the signs of potential radicalization and suspicious behaviors.
This policy option has a number of cons and pros. The pros of this policy option is that it is a participative where local partners – including law enforcers, social services providers, schools and communities are involved. Secondly, this policy option is preventive in nature as opposed to the one that is responsive to a threat already executed. Thirdly, this policy option is relatively cheaper to other option because that most of the staff involved in community awareness are already government employees under security agencies. There would be minimal recruitment of new staff. Lastly, this policy option has the advantage of dealing with terrorism at the root and not surface. One promises to eradicate terror groups with time ultimately. On the contrary, the policy has cons such as difficulty of executing community awareness programs in some areas due to security issues. Secondly, there is also a challenge of language barriers in areas where community awareness campaigns are to be done.
3.2 Border security and vetting of immigrants/refugees Policy
This is the second policy option that could be fully implemented in addressing the need to counter terrorism threats and attacks. This policy option involves investing on taking on measures on border security and immigration controls. This policy option would be supported by law considering the formulation of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 that was developed in response to the September 11 attacks. The development and execution of this policy option would be directed towards improving the detection of aliens seeking to enter the US (Rausch, 2016). Through tightened border security measures of screening at the US borders, it becomes easier to crack down on the criminals who would want to get into the country and cause harm. Through better screening at the border, it would be possible to identify persons who are suspected to have associations with terror organizations.
In addition, the execution of this policy option calls for necessary co-working between the different state agencies on security. In this regard, it would call for the sharing of border-related information among the different security agencies. Critical information would need to circulate through the different security agencies that are involved in staffing the borders (land, air, and air). Through timely sharing of information, it would be possible to boost the efforts to track the different visa holders as they travel in and out of the country. The execution of this policy would involve finding measures to monitor chain migration as well as the Diversity Immigrant Visa Programme. Taking on such approach would ensure that everyone who finds Visa into the US either for visiting or residency would need to be properly vetted. Taking on such steps would ensure that unlawful persons are denied the opportunity to come into the US and threaten the security of the US citizens.
At the same time, border security and immigration policy would involve strengthening the border points of the US with other neighboring countries. Terrorist would often attempt to find their way into the US through porous border points as the case has been in the case of the US-Mexico border. It is on this basis that arguments for erecting a wall between the two countries are a popular subject in the congress. Different security agencies that are positioned at the US border points would need to engage the different tools within their disposal to prevent suspected individuals from travelling to, from and within the country with the intention to commit terror attacks and cause harm to the people (Forest, 2004). The execution of this policy option would involve strict adherence to the federal immigration laws on handling terrorist databases, 'no fly' list, stricter guidelines, as well as, passenger and luggage screening measures. Other measures that fall within this policy option include offering criminal sanctions to persons who are found guilty of associating, aiding, or funding terror groups or organizations that partner with terror groups.
This policy option like the first one has pros and cons. The pros of this policy option are that it works effectively in protecting the citizens in the country against external aggression by terrorists. Secondly, this policy option works well in minimizing the potential attacks that may be planned by terrorists. Thirdly, this policy option is effective in dealing with potential homebred terrorists who skipped the hand of the law through the radicalization process. In addition, this policy option is beneficial to the country for it allows for all security agencies to work in collaboration in averting potential crime. On the contrary, this policy option has a few cons. The cons include the cost factor. This policy is not cost friendly for it takes massive funds to execute. Secondly, this policy takes a high number of people to execute in terms of staff employed at the different border points and within the country.
3.3 Countering terrorist financing Policy
The third policy option involves countering financing of terrorist organizations and missions. Terrorist missions requires a lot of funds in terms of planning, recruiting the perpetuator, purchasing the weapons and ammunitions, purchasing and maintaining the communications systems, buying the transportation means that would ferry weapons and people to execute the crimes. In fact, carrying out a successful terror attack takes a lot of money that has to be sourced by terrorist groups. Many of the global terrorist groups are positioned in the MENA region and are funded by different economic activities that are taxed by the terrorists. At the same time, some states are said to fund terror groups secretly through offering them the necessary weapons and ammunitions they need to execute their missions (Schillinger, 2016). In addition, there are individuals and private organizations that are alleged to fund terrorist groups for their own selfish gains as a return.
On this basis, this policy option is aimed at countering terrorism through disarming the funders who supply money and weapons to terror groups. The policy option is aimed at dealing with terrorism by making it difficult for the operations of terrorists to come through (Jarvis, 2010). Through making it difficult for terrorists to access the materials, equipment’s and funds that are needed to launch attacks or carry out radicalization training programs, terrorist groups become weakened. This policy option is not aimed at changing the mind of the terrorists by ensuring that they are not empowered to execute their plans. The focus of the policy option is to ensure that terror groups are weakened in terms of being unable to execute their strategic plans that would cause destruction. Having no funds to run terrorist projects makes the terror groups unable to execute their plans, and this works well in combating potential terror threats and attacks.
The execution of this policy option involves a number of action steps. First, it would involve the US security agencies collaborating with governments to track and freeze accounts that are owned and operated by suspected terrorists and terrorist supporting organizations. Secondly, it would take on freezing the assets that are owned by terrorist, which would generate income that would be channeled into terror activities. Locally, it would involve the execution of the Patriot Act laws that give Treasury room to detect, track, and prosecute individuals that are suspected to engage in money laundering and terrorist financing. Lastly, this policy reform will also involve hitting and destroying the assets belonging to terrorists, which are used to aid terror activities (Anderson, 2016). It may involve hitting the oil tanks, military machinery, as well as, legit businesses that are operated by terrorists.
This policy option has a number of cons and pros. On the pros, this policy option is easy to execute especially when the list of terrorists and suspects are developed. Secondly, this policy reform works effectively in disarming terror groups led by religious extremists groups, which are given sympathy by funders. Thirdly, this option is feasible due to the advanced technology that the US has in collecting intelligence and finding out organizations that funds terrorist groups. Lastly, this option works perfectly for it weakens terror groups with religious extremist members who have little chances of reforming into normal responsible citizens. On the contrary, the cons of this policy option include the high dependence of its success on the collection of the right intelligence. Secondly, this policy option may be rejected by other governments whose economies are dependent on organizations listed to support terrorism.
3.4 Countering Cyber threats on Terrorism Policy
The fourth and last policy option for countering terrorism is combating cyber threats and terrorist activities. This policy is based on the recent trend where an increased number of terrorist organizations have embarked on using digital media to spread propaganda and make threats. The recent past has seen terror groups abusing digital technology, especially the social media pages as a platform to spread their agenda. The development of this policy is aimed at ensuring that cyber platforms are not used to aid terrorist crimes. In an era of advanced technology, terrorists have taken their game much higher by manipulating the existing gaps to offer threats to the public (Aly, 2011). Indeed, the social media has become a leading platform that is used by terror groups to recruit new converts into their groups. This is important considering majority could be reached by terrorists through social media than in any other forum.
This policy option defends the need for better partnerships between the federal security agencies and social media/technology companies that operate on a global scale. The policy options calls for the agencies to find means to collaborate with digital companies including the social media firms. This is necessary considering the fact that terrorist groups have also explored social media sites as a platform to carry out terrorist radicalization, most recently in January 2018. In April 2016, the inter-agency Global Engagement Center (GEC) would take on this responsibility for it is in charge of leading, synchronizing, and coordinating different efforts of the Federal Government on recognition of foreign state and non-state propaganda aimed at undermining United States national security interests'. The focus of executing this policy option is to ensure that terrorist threats that are aided through internet and social media pages are dealt with effectively (Vakhitova, 2016). This is necessary considering how fast social media could send propaganda or information against the security interests of the United States.
Like other policy options, this policy option has a number of cons and pros. The pros of this policy option include the fact that most of the social media companies with large influence are based in the US. This means through creating the necessary laws that restrict the privacy of these companies in hiding information that risks security of the state would work perfectly. In addition, this policy option is cost friendly to execute for the social media companies would just need to develop the necessary gates that would block information sharing by terror groups. Thirdly, this policy option is advantageous on account that the US has the capacity in terms of experts who can handle cyber threats when it has ben diagnosed (Ahmed, 2007). On the contrary, there are a number of cons on this policy. First, this policy option is dependent on the good will of social media companies, especially those that are run from outside the US. Secondly, this policy option is narrow in scope and has to be used alongside other policy options, since it only addresses one form of terrorism-cyber terrorism.
4.0 PolicyRecommendation
My policy recommendation is option one, which addresses the efforts to counter radicalization of people into terrorism and religious extremist groups. Developing a policy that handles radicalization of people to take on terror activities is the best policy option that the US should heavily invest in. A number of reasons make this policy option the best for adoption for the US in the efforts to counter terrorism threats and real attacks. First, this policy option is effective in addressing the root causes of extremism in a holistic manner. Terrorism activities are mainly supported by religious extremism. Most of the religious extremist group has evolved to become terror groups or have become funders of terror activities. Through taking on this policy option, it becomes easier to deal with the root causes or religious extremism and this ultimately leads to minimizing the growth and expansion of terrorism globally.
Secondly, this policy option is the best option for implementation considering the complexities of using the military approach to dealing with terrorism. This method would offer a relatively lower number of casualties as compared to taking on the military strategy of hitting the enemy. In view of the events that happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, it becomes clear that the war cost was unimaginable. The war did not only cost the US citizen a lot of money in from the tax, but was one that led to the loss of lives of many people including innocent children and civilians. Taking on this policy option would help the government avoid repeating its mistakes. It will help the government minimize the risks of terrorism through changing the mindset of the extremists.
Thirdly, this policy option is the best for it will originate and drive solutions for addressing violent extremism from within the MENA and other regions that are adversely affected by terrorists and radicalization of people. In other words, this policy option will not only ensure that Americans are safe from terrorism when they are in the country, but also, when they are out of the country. This policy option will ensure that not only the Americans become safe, but also, the other nations that are like-minded and would want a safer world. This policy option would promote the development of a safer world for all.
References
Ahmed, P. (2007). Terror in the name of Islam – Unholy War, Not Jihad. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law , 39 , 759–788.
Aly, A. (2011). Terrorism and global security: Historical and contemporary perspectives . Melbourne: Palgrave Macmillan.
Anderson, T. (2016). Contemporary terrorism and the true believer. Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression , 8 (3), 177–196.
Forest, J. (2004). Terrorism and Counterterrorism. NewYork: Rex Publication.
Hoffman, B. (2006). Inside terrorism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Irwin, N. (2015). The complexity of responding to home-grown terrorism: Radicalization, de-radicalization and disengagement. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism , 10 (2), 166–175.
Jarvis, L. (2010). Counter-Radicalization: Critical perspectives . New York, NY: Routledge.
Kundnani, A. (2012). Blind spot? Security narratives and far-right violence. Security and Human Rights , 23 (2), 129–146.
McBride, M. (2011). The logic of terrorism: Existential anxiety, the search for meaning, and terrorist ideologies. Terrorism and Political Violence , 23 (4), 560–581.
Neumann, P. (2013). The trouble with radicalization. International Affairs , 89 (4), 873–893.
Rausch, C. (2016). Fundamentalism and terrorism. Journal of Terrorism Research , 6 (2), 28–35.
Schillinger, T. (2016). Group dynamics and religious terrorism. Journal of Applied Security Research , 11 (3), 334–34.
Vakhitova, Z. (2016). Right-wing extremism. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism , 11 (2), 121–142.
