Cost to Benefit Analysis of Counter-Terrorism Measures in the US - Term Paper Example

?Cost to Benefit Analysis of Counter Terrorism Measures in the US since 9/11 Affiliation with more information about affiliation, research grants, conflict of interest and how to contact Topic: Cost to Benefit Analysis of Counter Terrorism Measures in the US since 9/11, Can the benefits be improved with less cost? Introduction: Terrorism has become the world’s greatest problem in the modern times. It refers to all kinds of organized activities against a state or society, which intended to create panic. It rises from the suppressed needs and desires of a certain group of people. Terrorism showed its most ugly face with the terror attack on World Trade Centre on September 11th 2001. The forces behind this attack was “Osama Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda terrorist organization” (Kelly, 2001). It received international attention after this incident. Terrorism affects a country’s political and cultural aspects. Counter Terrorism is a method used to prevent terrorist activities, by government or law enforcement agencies. “The most common definition of counterterrorism (also spelled counter-terrorism) on the Internet is the practices, tactics, techniques, and strategies that governments, militaries, police departments and corporations adopt in response to terrorist threats and/or acts, both real and imputed” (Kolodkin, 2011). This paper deals with a detailed study of the funds raised and spent by the US government in the area of counter terrorism by an analysis of the scenarios and policies prevailing prior to 9/11 as well as its aftermath. History of terrorism in United States: The most noted and first terrorist attack in the US was against white supremacy. After the Civil War, the hierarchy among the people in US declined and there was much disgruntlement due to the wide gap in the social status of people. During the 1960s there was much domestic terrorism in the country. It was in the form of hijacking planes although with not much political intention. During 1980s, terrorism in the name of Christianity also started. With the starting of 21st century global terrorism also came to United States. Notable among these is the Al Qaeda attack of World Trade Centre on Sep.11th 2001. Obviously terrorism has begun to rise in many parts of the world. “Its characteristics flow from the international system of nation-states, and its success depends on the existence of a mass media to create an aura of terror among many people” (Zalman, 2011). To discuss in detail some of the most important events of the terrorist attacks of US, first among them is the seizing of the United States assembly by the Iranian students in the year 1979. The cause for this incident was the protest of the Iranian students against the then US President Jimmy Carter, who hosted the deposed former ruler of Iran, Shah Reza Pahlavi to US for medical treatment. This crisis was termed as Iran Hostage crisis, which lead to a near state of war and ruined the presidency of Jimmy Carter. This crisis is still considered to be one of the causes of enmity between America and Iran even today. When Shah returned to power, he had a good alliance with America and the latter supplied weapons to Iran. Soon after the Islamic Revolution aroused against Shah he flew into exile. President Jimmy Carter also had to face the violent protests of the Iranians. Another major event in the history of terrorist attacks in America is the attack on The World Trade Centre in 1993. The massive investigation that followed—led by the task force, with some 700 FBI agents worldwide ultimately joining in” (First Strike: Global Terror in America, 2008). It was on Feb. 26th 1993 when a truck bomb set off below the North tower of The World Trade Centre. It was found out that Islamic fundamentalists were responsible for this attack. Apart from this there were many continued attacks in the New York City and the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) found out Ramzi Yousef of Al Qaeda to be the leader of the operation. The FBI caught many of the members from the terrorist’s cell, who were in the operation of assembling bombs. In his words Yousef claimed that he belonged to the liberation army. “The Oklahoma City bombing was the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil until the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center attack” (Rosenberg, 1995). This was the result of an argument between the FBI and the Branch Davidian religious group. This ended up in the gassing up of the complex in which many people died including children. People held the US government responsible for this tragedy and called it the Waco Tragedy. A protest was lead by a person named Timothy McVeigh against those who were meant to be responsible for this. In the Oklahoma City there were many federal offices and McVeigh decided to take revenge on the second anniversary of the Waco Tragedy. He stored up many explosive items and on April 19, 1995 when the employees of the Murrah Federal building arrived for their work, a truck containing huge explosives tore the building, which shattered into millions of pieces. This is also a phase of terrorism that the Americans had to face in the past years. About 168 people lost their lives including 19 children. Government Counter- Terrorism Policies -Pre 9/11: Counter-Terrorism is the policy of the US to object vigorously the attacks of all the terrorist attack in the American Territory. Whether it is Domestic or Foreign Terrorism, US government has decided to object it aggressively, as it is an act of threatening the public security and also the national security. The government tries to identify the terrorist groups or any group that supports terrorism and a huge price is imposed on them for their action. It does not provide any concession to the terrorists. According to this policy, states that support terrorism are isolated and the terrorists are brought to justice for their misdeed. This policy also states that if any country requires aid for fighting against terrorism US government is ready at hand. It was the US president William.J. Clinton who put forward the Policy of terrorism in 1995. It was in Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 39. According to this Directive, “… the United States shall seek to identify groups or states that sponsor or support such terrorists, isolate them and extract a heavy price for their actions” (U.S. Policy on Counterterrorism (U), 1995). In 1998 he made provisions for another policy, that is, PDD 62. The Presidential Decision Directive 39 or the Policy of Counter Terrorism orders the officers in charge of the FBI, DCI (Director of Central Intelligence) to enact all measures that reduce the power of terrorism. FBI played a crucial role in the governments counter terrorism strategy, which included both intellectual and criminal investigations. In the pre 9/11 period the FBI undertook the traditional methods of investigation. In spite of all these policies, United States had to face Al Qaeda attack thrice. They did not have an effective system to store, search, and retrieve the information. They did not keep records of interviews and investigations. The FBI then started Joint Terrorist Task force to share counter terrorism information with the intelligence department. Federal funding for Counter Terrorism- Pre 9/11: Funds for counter terrorism activity and for the development of counter terrorist technology were very less. According to the US President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection only about $ 250 million was invested in the year 1997. Later in the year 1999 this raised to about $500 million. There were restrictions on recruiting foreign agents. They were not allotted any additional resources and there was no international cooperation among them. They were not imparted with improved screening practices. But, unauthorized planes were given access to airports. New kinds of security technologies were also lacking. Overview of Sep.11th 2001 Terrorist attack: The worst among the terrorist attacks in the US was that of the Al Qaeda attack in 2001, which destroyed The World Trade Centre and damaged the Pentagon. About 3000 people were killed in this attack. It was a suicidal attack made by the Al Qaeda. They hijacked four of the passenger air lines and it was used to crash the towers of the World trade centre. Osama Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda terrorist organization were held accountable for this attack. Governments counter policies – Post9/11: After the terrorist attacks in 2001, the policy of Counter Terrorism had changed. A mission was assigned to the FBI concerned with counter terrorism. The main purpose of the US Policy on Counter Terrorism is to provide guidelines for discouraging terrorism in America as well as against its people. The prominent statement in the policy is the Patriot Act, which was signed into law on Oct. 26th 2001 by President Bush after the attack of World Trade Centre. This Act created a Terrorist Exclusion List. “Section 411 of the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001 (8 U.S.C. § 1182) authorized the Secretary of State, in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General, to designate terrorist organizations for immigration purposes. This authority is known as the “Terrorist Exclusion List (TEL)” authority” (Terrorist Exclusion List, 2004). Members of this list were not allowed to enter the country. The agencies that perform the functions of counter terrorism are security and law enforcement agencies. Most notable among them are Delta Force and Seal Team Six along with larger Special Operations Command, and they are considered as the strength of US counter terrorism. Bush declared “War on Terror” after a few days of the attack on the World trade centre. It was with declaration that United States had identified a new form of conflict. According to the principle of objecting the nations that support terrorism, US sent its troops to Afghanistan in 2001 and to Iran in 2003 under the Presidency of George W Bush. After 2001 there was a drastic change in the counter terrorism capabilities and qualities of US intelligence. Federal Funding for Counter Terrorism-Post 9/11: Since Sep.11th 2001 there was a flow of funds to the States for counter terrorism training. “A recent report from Political Research Associates found that $ 1.67 Billion in federal funds went to States in 2010 for the purpose of counter terrorism training and that there was little oversight of the content of the training sessions” (Gaubatz, 2011). The Annual Report submitted to Congress on Combating Terrorism of the year 2002 tells us that the federal funds were raised to about $10.333 billion. These funds may be used for counter terrorist activities like statutory direction or congressional guidance. The funds are also utilized by the FBI for so many other related activities like forensic laboratories proceedings, which would assist FBI in their investigation. These funds are not put to use properly as some experts who are giving this training, base it against the Muslims, which creates a false image of the Muslims. “Although the strategies provide an important first step, they provide neither clearly defined federal and national performance goals nor measures for assessing progress, nor set clear funding priorities. Lacking such measures and priorities, it is also difficult to assess whether funding increases are being allocated to the highest-priority programs” (COMBATING TERRORISM Funding Data Reported to Congress Should Be Improved, 2002). Analysis of Funding and Government Policy-Success: The government policy of counter terrorism is a success because there was never a terrorist attack that was as dangerous as that of 2001. It was the active participation and the various operations of the FBI, which lead to this success. The FBI agents were able to cut off the financial help the Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups had attained. The officials started working out with their policies much better than they did earlier. They were able to have an effective performance in Afghan and Pakistan. After Sep.11 2001, terrorists failed to attack America. This success can be considered as the product of intelligence operations of the FBI. Cost to Benefit Ratio: The counter terrorist activities are found to be very beneficial. In Counter Terrorist Research and Development, the cost and benefit are in proper sync. It is found that marginal benefit does not exceed marginal cost. If the defensive effort is absent the cost imposed by the terrorists will be greater. When the activities of International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) are considered we could find that it is of low cost. As a matter of fact, “INTERPOL is an international organization whose mission is to facilitate the exchange of police information and promote cooperation and assistance between law enforcement authorities of its 188 member countries, including the United States” (U.S. Department of Justice: U.S. National Central Bureau of Interpol, 2011). For example, the US homeland security makes use of billions of dollars each year. But Interpol’s expense comes up to millions of dollars. Their cost benefit ratio ranges from a high rate of 162 to a lower rate of 65. This shows us that by adopting high- qualified trainers; we may attain high standard techniques to work against the terrorist activities with less cost, which ultimately helps us to attain more benefits. In a study of this kind it is important to note that the benefits that accrue in the context of security should commensurate with its investments and funding outlays. Perhaps one of the most redeeming features justifying high profile spending in internal security within the US, is that post 9/11, there have been no major calamities of this genre in terms of terrorists attacks. This could primarily be due to the fact that post 9/11, the security standards both within the US and in locations where American interests are subsisting, have been reinforced considerably and terrorist groups are not able to penetrate the security covers, post 9/11. Besides, the US government has implemented strong and to a very large extent, draconian laws that could obstruct a security threat from the very beginning. The Patriot Act, for example, has placed many individuals well under the force of law. Law enforcement is superior in its own way as it can move into any place, search, seize and arrest- even without warrants. All these methods have put a strong premium on security measures, both overt and covert, and have made it difficult for non law abiding individuals, groups or agencies to operate with a clear mandate since they could come within the security scanner in no time and be apprehended. No person in the US is now beyond or above the legal machinery in force to check and counteract on terrorism in any form. Pro-active measures are indeed important in the context of crime and terrorist activities, since it is better to avoid such disasters than to overcome them. Perhaps the 9/11 terror strikes are a blatant and conspicuous example of what could entail security lets its guard down even for a second, although, in all fairness, it could be well said that events like 9/11 may possibly get hold of any country and make them its victim. It does not matter whether the country is the birth- place of such terror organization or a foreign land. Thus, it can be postulated that not having a strong and robust security system (with additional investments in such measures) in full operation would lead to disasters and create more losses and damages to the country and its sovereignty than having a good security system, which could address such issues effectively. Hence, the main issue in hand, in terms of cost benefits, are proactive measures like anticipatory remands and arrests of suspects, diversion of key terrorist linked information, sealing alleged terrorist locations and reducing the changes of a terror linked attack to the barest and remotest minimum, or even making it a non entity. Perhaps, the greatest cost benefits that accrue in the case of the US spending on their full scale war against anti terrorism is that terrorism in its most virulent and deadly form seems to have been effectively controlled. No major terror attack has occurred post 9/11, within the US. NATO allies and American forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan (springboards of terror in the world) are determined to exterminate terrorist forces in the world, and are also making sure that the fear in these terror ravaged countries do not spread to other countries also. In short, the battle against terror seems to have been temporarily won, although the war is ongoing, until the last terror madarassa (terror training camp) has been closed down or eradicated. Terrorists do not come with their visiting cards; their attacks are deadly, sudden and extremely damaging – and jehadis (warriors) care less about their own lives than the lives of their victims. This could be the main reason for their limited success so far, but the world is ready to take them on their own terms – of bloodshed and total decimation to its perpetrators- no questions asked. Recommendation: The money spent on protecting a nation against terrorism is greater than the amount spent on other activities. Many people in the country die due to other reasons. Hence, the utilization of fund just in the field of counter terrorism is not apt. Counter terrorism makes use of the funds only in specific areas. If the terrorists find an alternative way of attacking, it may be difficult for the counter agents. Thus, large amounts of fund may go to waste. It is applicable that the funds of counter terrorism should be reduced. If not they may employ some amateur for the training programs, which may lead to create a false image of the Muslims. They create an idea in the minds of the people that all the Muslims are terrorists. The cost of counter terrorism is not only borne by the government agencies but also by the common people. They should not be made to suffer in the name of counter terrorism. The capabilities of the militants should be enhanced. Inventory training programs should be given to them. Training programs should be reconstructed so as to involve as many volunteers as possible. Conclusion: It is better to have a clear idea of the data of cost and benefit related with the ongoing counter terrorism activities. Analysis of funding by the federal government is also essential. A further study of the cost of terrorist attacks is also needed to get a better estimation of the marginal cost and marginal benefit ratio. Analysis of experiences of other nations can also be done to have an insight of the various counter terrorism policies. Congressional committee should be restructured and amended in a way to suit all the activities related to counter terrorism. Funds for counter terrorism should be used efficiently for intellectual activities and also for the research and development of counter terrorism. The US should try to promote international cooperation to fight against terrorism. Since 9/11 we could identify changes in America’s protests against terrorism mainly because of the government actions. Reference List COMBATING TERRORISM Funding Data Reported to Congress Should Be Improved. (2002). GAO. Retrieved March 2, 2011, from http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/testimony/213.pdf First Strike: Global Terror in America. (2008). FBI. Retrieved March 2, 2011, from http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2008/february/tradebom_022608 Gaubatz, D. (2011). Federal Funds for Counterterrorism Training Pay For Anti-Muslim Instructors. Wordpress. Retrieved March 2, 2011, from http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/federal-funds-for-counterterrorism-training-pay-for-anti-muslim-instructors/ Kelly, M. (2001). Terrorist Attack: World Trade Center on September 11. About.com. Retrieved March 4, 2011, from http://americanhistory.about.com/od/terroris1/p/wtc_September11.htm Kolodkin, B. (2011). What Is Counterterrorism?. About.com. Retrieved March 4, 2011, from http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/defense/a/what-is-counterterrorism.htm Rosenberg, J. (1995). Oklahoma City Bombing. About.com. Retrieved March 4, 2011, from http://history1900s.about.com/cs/crimedisaster/p/okcitybombing.htm Terrorist Exclusion List. (2004). U.S. Department of State. Retrieved March 4, 2011, from http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/des/123086.htm U.S. Department of Justice: U.S. National Central Bureau of Interpol. (2011). Washington. D.C. Retrieved March 4, 2011, from http://www.justice.gov/usncb/ U.S. Policy on Counterterrorism (U). (1995). THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON. Retrieved March 4, 2011, from http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd39.htm Zalman, A. (2011). The History of Terrorism. About.com. Retrieved March 4, 2011, from http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/p/Terrorism.htm Read More