The strategy is structured around a set of six strategic objectives, four end states, and six lines of effort, which the authors convey as interconnected through a series of helpful icons. In this sense, the new strategy stylistically reads more like a traditional military strategy than previous versions.Yet the core actions it proposes are fundamentally conventional and a continuation of the activities that have underpinned our counterterrorism efforts since at least 2006.Indeed, a lack of transparency has been perhaps the Trump Administration’s biggest discontinuity with the approach of its predecessor – and the counterterrorism strategy does nothing to reverse or suggest that we are mistaken in perceiving this trend.Tags: The Crucible John Proctor Essay ConclusionThesis On Wireless Data TransferDiscrimination EssaysComparative Essay Great In Religion Ten TheologyResearch Paper Outlines ExamplesAre Narrative Essays Written In First Person
These and many other questions can be asked about what we are currently doing; indeed, the two of us don’t necessarily fully concur with the prevailing approach (or with each other) on every aspect of our counterterrorism operations.
But where we do agree is in thinking that it’s more likely that we will be able to thoughtfully approach questions like those above – and that we’ll be much more likely to be able to intelligently de-escalate our conflicts, if conditions warrant – when counterterrorism is not treated as a political wedge issue.
The governments may implement more and more strict laws using fighting the terrorists as cause, but it may lead to almost totalitarian regimes where the basic human rights of the citizens are suppressed.
From the other hand, giving everyone complete freedom and privacy may lead to terrorists abusing these rights and using the privacy against the society.
We recognize that there are those from both the left and the right who dissent from the rough counterterrorism consensus that has emerged in recent years, particularly the continued deployment of our troops to combat the threat.
Children not yet born when we first invaded Afghanistan are now old enough to serve in the conflict there – when, many of these dissenters ask, will this “forever war” ever end?And some of Trump’s most provocative campaign rhetoric – bringing back waterboarding and a “hell of a lot worse,” filling up Guantanamo Bay, and seizing Iraqi oil – concerned his desire to “Make American Safe Again” by adopting a new, much tougher counterterrorism approach that broke sharply from what he believed were the failed policies of the past. We are working on a longer-term project that seeks to explain the surprising amount of counterterrorism continuity between the prior Administration and the current one, and explore whether it will last.But the Trump Administration has not followed through on these campaign statements, and its new counterterrorism strategy is so conventional that it even largely shies away from discussing the controversial immigration and border policies that the President has embraced during his time in office. In short, our thesis is that the Bush and Obama Administrations, alongside both Republican- and Democratic-controlled Congresses, foreign partners, other institutions, and the public, developed a rough bipartisan (and nonpartisan) consensus on how to approach what might be termed “first generation” counterterrorism issues – that is, the matters related to force deployments and ethical and legal issues that attracted a significant amount of popular attention in the decade or so after September 11, 2001. Our view is that the consensus on these issues is accepted by a wide swath of actors, now deep in the institutions of American policy and politics, and accordingly, these counterterrorism topics have decreased in salience as wedge issues.While both of us think it is unlikely that President Trump or a Democratic successor would pivot away from an approach to countering terrorist threats that relies on the military anytime soon, we both agree that it is entirely appropriate to question whether the prevailing consensus makes the correct tradeoffs. In what theaters beyond Afghanistan should we be taking strikes or deploying troops?When should we be willing to deploy forces beyond relatively safe training and advisory activities to supporting partners in combat?The definition of terrorism is actions made to frighten the people and threaten them to achieve some political, ideological or religious goals.So it can be classified by the goals the terrorist try to achieve and by the methods they use to do this.Unfortunately, the theme of terrorism is now still very acute.The terroristic acts aren’t history, they can happen in the centers of the peaceful cities of developed countries. but still it isn’t the reason not to study terrorism and search ways to prevent it and, possibly, eliminate it completely.Rather, he seems to have largely delegated counterterrorism policy to his departments and agencies, which have been aggressive in combating the threat but have largely maintained the existing framework.(The fact that those departments and agencies largely continued the campaign to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) which President Trump inherited when he took office is perhaps the best example of this phenomenon.) This does not mean, however, that the current continuity is assured and that we no longer have to worry about President Trump’s volatility and incendiary rhetoric.