Counter-Terrorism Strategies & Plans of the USA - Assignment Example

Counter Terrorism strategies & plans of the USA Introduction Terrorism is a complex term to define, owing to its amorphous nature. Terrorism can be described as both a tactic as well as a strategy. On one hand, it may be an appalling crime, whereas it may be a sacred duty on the other. Similarly, it may be viewed as a warranted response to oppression. The United States Department of Defence defines terrorism as the premeditated application of illegitimate violence or threat of illegitimate violence to implant fear; intended to force or intimidate governments or the public in the quest of objectives that are commonly political, social, religious, or ideological. Terrorism mainly influences an extended audience outside the straight victim. The motivating scheme of terrorists is to gain the greatest publicity possible among the local populace, government, or the world at large. Acts of terrorism are many and varied and can range from intimidation to actual assassinations, kidnappings, airline hijackings, bomb scares, car bombs, agro terrorism, cyber attacks and the use of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons among others. The targets of terrorist attacks include military, civilian, and government facilities, international airports, cities as well as high-profile landmarks. However, most terrorists target non-combatant areas; such as large public gatherings and utilities. The strategies of terrorism include coercion, aggravation, divergence, mobilization, and de legitimization (Friedman and Harper 2010, p. 9). Counterterrorism (CT) refers to practices, procedures, methods, and strategies employed by governments, militaries, police departments as well as corporations in reaction to preventing terrorist threats and/or acts, whether actual or foreseen. The objective of counter terrorism is to neutralize and dismantle terrorist cells (Orttung and Makarychev 2006, p.10). A Description on the Counterterrorism Strategy Established by U.S Key institutions in the U.S. involved in counterterrorism efforts include the diplomatic institutions, economic, financial, information propagation, military, intelligence agencies, homeland security, and law enforcement agencies. U.S. counterterrorism efforts are interdepartmental as well as multinational. The inspiration of U.S. counterterrorism efforts lies in adherence to the national core values, building of security partnerships, and building of a culture of resilience. The goals of U.S. CT strategies include protection of the American people, the Homeland, and its interests. In addition, CT strategies help to avert acquisition, development, and use of weapons by terrorists. Other objectives of CT strategies include disruption and defeat of al Qaeda, eradication of terrorists’ safe havens and sources of financing, reducing influence and control of spreaders of jihadist ideologies and building durable counterterrorism partnerships and capabilities with other countries (Schmitt 2010, p.8). U.S. currently defines its main terrorist threat as originating from al Qaeda. The attack of twin towers in September, 2011 which killed close to 3000 people, marked a milestone in U.S. counterterrorism measures as it reoriented its counterterrorism policy. U.S. undertook a significant reinforcement of its defences and pursued an international coalition on the same. The U.S. has made inroads in toppling the Taliban regime and capturing of prominent terrorist operatives. Its efforts to disorder, dismantle, and eventually crush al Qaeda and its affiliates and adherents are paying off. The U.S. has instituted counterterrorism programs inspired by modern terrorism. Modifications within Federal government’s responses are critical in countering the emerging threats. Meanwhile, counter terrorism legislations have been put in place; such as economic sanctions to sponsors of terrorism activities. Post 9-11 legislations include USA PATRIOT Act and National Intelligence Reform Act among others. In reaction to the terrorist threats that it faces, U.S. has established a variety of institutional changes. The institutional changes afford better coordination in the fight against terrorism. The institutional changes also bridge the gap between law enforcement and intelligence. In countering violent extremism, U.S. has launched various programs such as international programs and policy as well as organizations, which led to the creation of Department of State and Department of Defence. Some of the domestic programs include Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and National Counterterrorism Centre. In addition, there have also been other changes such as creation of the post of director of National Intelligence, who coordinates and ensures a seamless sharing of information between the different intelligence institutions. Nevertheless, the creation of the institutions has received criticism as counterproductive due to increase in bureaucracy. Conflict in sharing of information and slowing down of operations can be touted as emanating from the extra tiers created (Schmitt 2010, p.15). The Department of Homeland Security engages in counterterrorism in areas of aviation security, chemical security, fraud and counterfeit, law enforcement, information sharing, and nuclear security. Other areas of action include border security, immigration, and cyber security. Similarly, it also engages in exercises such as preparedness, response and recovery in the event of terrorist attacks. The U.S. has also stepped up efforts in counterterrorism training programs against terrorism financing, weapons of mass destruction, and cyber terrorism (Kraft and Marks 2012, p.213). The set policies has enabled the U.S. to make a lot of progress in infiltrating terrorist cells, disrupting terror networks, frustrating the planning of terrorist attacks, and interdicting of attackers. The policies such as communication serve to dispel and curb instinctive worries among the public who might be melodramatic to terrorism (Friedman and Harper 2010, p.7). U.S. has also employed other measures, some of which seem notorious, such as holding of prisoners. Captured members of Taliban or al Qaeda may be held indefinitely without trial at Guantanamo Bay. Accusations that the US has set up secret prisons to hold suspected terrorist from various countries often crop up. Other alleged accusations include employing torture to obtain information as well as eavesdropping on calls. Some of U.S. counterterrorism tactics employ high technology to conduct surgical strikes on various terrorist locations. The U.S. also engages in targeted killing of known or suspected terrorists to avert and curtail their operations (Wittes 2009, p.347). This is the motive behind the use of predator drone aircrafts as well as conducting of raids to known terrorist hidings. This is what enabled U.S. to take out Osama Bin Laden, a key mastermind of 9/11 terrorist attacks. The U.S. also employ rendition, whereby captured terrorist suspects are handed over to another government for trial. Similarly, the U.S may prosecute terrorists from other countries. The United States has also fallen out for expanding habeas corpus rights to captured Taliban or al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. Another prominent counterterrorism strategy implemented by U.S. is foreign invasions and occupancy. U.S. sent troops into countries harbouring Taliban or al Qaeda operatives, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, in order to destabilize the al Qaeda or Taliban. This strategy also prevents the emergence of al Qaeda friendly regimes. Counterterrorism measures also deter terrorist’s acceptance by rogue states (Davis and Sisson 2009, p.9). The measures also persuade defections of terrorists and ease exits from terrorist cells. They also intend to exploit fragile theological validations for violence while reinforcing the authority of moderate Muslims and their ideology. Americans have had to deal with increased inconveniences of flying as there are thorough checks using metal detectors and other technological devices in airports. Aviation security system, which incorporates screening at checkpoints as well as onboard security, deters and reduces cases of airline hijackings. America’s future counterterrorism strategies will be anchored overseas, by its military forces and the CIA. Most of the efforts will be tactical in nature rather than the strategic addressing of the roots of extremism, which inspired the Iraq invasion. Some counterterrorism strategies are out of favour due to growing disaffection within the American population stemming from massive casualty and economic expenses of overt operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The apparent technological advances have a dramatic effect on both international relations as well as a risk to terrorism. The growth in technology has handed parties, the government as well as terrorists, power to conduct activities. The government has a chance to manipulate large amounts of data and can be able to build profiles on terrorists with ease. However, the enormous data may as well be an impediment on counterterrorism due to emerging issues such as privacy and bureaucracy (Geltzer 2010, p.3). On the other hand, technological advances hand terrorists a golden opportunity to engage in new acts of terrorism such as cyber-terrorism. It also gives them a platform to propagate extremist propaganda. Thus, there is an increasing danger of increased radicalization of the youth (Davis and Sisson 2009, p.13). Despite the successes, the threat still remains, particularly coupled with the instability in Afghanistan, which is a rich ground for terrorist organizations. The proliferation of the heroin trade in Afghanistan has only worsened the situation. The U.S. invasion of Iraq did not yield the desired results. This only succeeded in creating a vacuum, which terrorists are exploiting and converting the country into a training ground for their missions. The invasion provided a perfect reason for terrorists to awaken their anti-western sentiments (Dandurand 2009, p.49). The Role of the Police and other Agencies involved in Countering Terrorism Counterterrorism should be the agenda of all members of the society. Police, as well as intelligence agencies, have an essential role to play in mitigation of terrorism through deterrence, tracking down, safeguarding, and preparedness. Police should discover and investigate local terrorist threats. Therefore, police have an opportune chance to protect vulnerable targets. Police and intelligence agencies should also broaden community policing actions as well as enhance handling of gathered information (Clarke and Newman 2007, p.9). The police should also protect vulnerable targets of terrorism. Enhancement of expertise and flexibility in counterterrorism measures is vital for police in order to conduct their functions effectively. Police has a role in disrupting and crushing organized crime in their jurisdiction as this has a bearing on terrorism. Police should develop partnerships with both public and private agencies. This is critical; it offers impetus in counterterrorism efforts (Conte 2010, p.489). Police and intelligence agencies have a core mandate of ensuring that they are prepared, responsive, and quick in recovery during times of terrorist attacks. Counterterrorism doctrine should be woven into everyday police practice. This will ensure that it becomes part of daily thinking in the police force. This increases chances of police mitigating terrorism; especially domestic radicalization. In summary, police and intelligence agencies have various roles to play including collection of intelligence about feasible terrorist activities, ensuring protection of susceptible targets, and promptness in response to attacks. The police and intelligence agencies have a role in pre-emption of terrorist activities as well as post-incident investigations. In addition, they have a duty of respecting and protecting human rights (Clarke and Newman 2007, p.12). Police need to enhance their technical, human as well as strategic capacity to counter to terrorism. Analysis Is U.S. Counterterrorism Effort Effective on its own? U.S. counterterrorism model cannot be effective in isolation. There is a need to assemble a dynamic and combined force in combating terrorism. Counterterrorism efforts should be integrated to enhance sharing of critical intelligence on terrorism. The cooperation between countries should be complementary. However, achievement of this is elusive. Efforts should be made to maintain a definite point of contact for international partners in counterterrorism. This abridges liaison channels and makes strategies, tactics, and measures in counterterrorism more effective. Relations with other countries such as the bilateral relationship between U.S. and UK enhance pooling of intelligence and other resources together. For instance, CIA, FBI, NSA cooperation with M15 enables adoption of a shared traffic in counterterrorism. To a large extent, U.S. counterterrorism instruments and measures match those of European countries, which advocate for better police and judicial cooperation, establishment of international legal requirements, halting of terrorism financing, fortification of air security, and coordination in global action (Bures 2011, p.64). European countries have also adopted strategies to combat home-grown terrorism, which is becoming a reality more than ever. The U.S. response to terrorism has ignored certain crime-terror nexus (Orttung and Makarychev 2006, p.10). Post 9-11 U.S. does not pay critical interest in the numerous links between organized crime and terrorism. This weakens its efforts in counterterrorism. Much of the efforts and resources, to fight organized crime in pre 9-11 were committed to combating terrorism. The failure to interrogate the situation accurately has predisposed policy breakdown in countries such as Iraq. This is amid low success in going after terror suspects’ structures, as well as human rights contravention. The Director of National Intelligence has to deal with enormous challenges of integrating various state agencies. This makes sharing of information and intelligence difficult. In most instances, the agencies are more concerned about protecting their own interests rather than sharing information. This shadows and slows down counterterrorism efforts. Initial American counterterrorism efforts, after 9-11, can be described to have been exceedingly militarized, which contrasted the European approach of law enforcement. The role of the word “war” in the terminology of counterterrorism is faulted since it erroneously implies that it is solely military. The phrases “war on terror” fall prey to extremist rhetoric who allege it is a war on Islam. This in turn, has made counterterrorism efforts more complex to accomplish (Bures 2011, p.48). UK’s CONTEST Model UK’s Counter Terrorism Strategy (CONTEST) centres around four work streams shaped by four objectives, namely; pursue, prevent, protect, and prepare. This model appeals to common values of democracy, disclaimer to violence, and rule of law. The CONTEST model instils greater consistency into the country’s anti-terrorist legislation (HM Government 2011, p.38). The model also boosts interagency cooperation. The superseding of ethos is one in which terrorist threats are first perceived as a law enforcement problem. UK’s CONTEST model bears a lot of strength and can be considered as unrivalled to the rest of the Western world owing to its collegiality. The model improves cooperation between agencies of the government. This comes amid increasing threats from domestic Islamist extremists. The UK has put efforts to trace the crime links of the IRA as counterterrorism measure. Thus, it is easier to draw a correlation between the two nexus. The UK also overhauled its policing resources as well as practices so as to enhance their ability to gather as well as analyze intelligence. Consecutively, the UK set up the National Criminal Intelligence Service to aid in centralization of collection, processing, and analysis of criminal intelligence within the policing system. Similarly, M15 works seamlessly with Metropolitan police to maintain a flawless investigative effort. U.S. should put more effort in preventing extremism within its borders to ensure that home-grown extremism does not succeed. U.S. should also encourage initiatives that foster civic responsibility within Muslim populations. Such efforts promote integration within the mainstream population, hence assist in combating terrorism. Community outreach efforts may also come in handy in the fight against terrorism. Conclusion Organized crime is central to terrorism debate as the two borrow heavily from each other. Terrorist attacks and organized crime are distinct from each other, whereby terrorism pursues political or ideological objectives, whereas the motivation of organized crime is solely money. However, the two spheres have a close interaction in which terrorists turn to criminals for certain services such as document falsification and weapons purchase. Thus, counterterrorism strategies should recognize the centrality of organized crime rather than treating it as a law enforcement problem. Efficient coordination between various agencies is crucial in tackling the problem of terrorism. Similarly, it is essential to have more interest to ensure maintenance of a healthy trade -off between the goals of security, as well as civil liberties of a society. Law, practices, and institutions should interact closely to enhance the effectiveness of counterterrorism measures. References List Bures, O. (2011). EU Counterterrorism policy: A paper tiger? Surrey, Ashgate. pp. 31-48. Clarke, R. & Newman, G. (2007). Police and the prevention of terrorism, Policing 1(1), pp.9-20. Conte, A. (2010). Human rights in the prevention and punishment of terrorism: Commonwealth, New York, Springer. pp. 489-492. Dandurand, Y. (2009). Handbook on criminal justice responses to terrorism, Vienna, United Nations Office and Crime. pp. 49-51 Davis, L. & Sisson, M. (2009). A strategic planning approach: Defining alternative counterterrorism strategies as an illustration, Arlington, RAND Corporation. pp. 9-15 Friedman, B & Harper, J 2010, Terrorizing ourselves: Why U.S. counterterrorism policy is failing and how to fix it, Washington, Cato Institute. pp. 7-9. Geltzer, A. (2010) US counter-terrorism strategy and al-Qaeda: Signaling and the terrorist world-view, New York, Routledge. pp. 2-5. HM Government (2011). Contest: the United Kingdom’s strategy for countering terrorism, London, Crown. pp. 38-78. Kraft, M. & Marks, E. (2012). U.S. Government counterterrorism: A guide to who does what, CRS Press. pp. 213-216. Orttung, R. & Makarychev, A. (2006). A National counter-terrorism strategies: Legal, institutional, and public policy dimensions in the US, UK, France, Turkey and Russia, Amsterdam, IOS Press. pp. 10-15. Schmitt, J. (2010). Safety, liberty, and Islamist terrorism: American and European approaches to domestic counterterrorism, Washington, AEI Press. pp. 2-20 Wittes, B. (2009). Legislating the war on terror: an agenda for reform, Washington, Georgetown University Law Center. pp. 347-350. Read More