Using The Strategy Of Preemption For Preventing Terrorism Politics Essay

Using The Strategy Of Preemption For Preventing Terrorism political relation renderTerrorism is a broad phenomenon which locoweed have many subjective interpretations. take down if its definitions vary widely, it is well known that terrorist human action relies on the delectation of violence and it dirty dog be seen as a consequent of negociate failure. Terrorist actions are carried out by non-state actors and are designed to achieve item governmental changes. In order to achieve their objectives, terrorists are looking for variant lays which, hit, assure not only a considerable loss, scarce overly a psychological impact on public opinion, endangering human lives, value systems, standards and political systems. As terrorism became a global issue, states adopted antithetical strategies such as defensive measures, preemption, or negotiation and compromise in order to prevent and advertize against it.In this essay I go away analyze one of the strategies mentioned abo ve, the dodging of preemption against terrorism and I leave behind examine its be and benefits. In the first part of my essay I leave alone present this system in detail, developing what it represents and how it earth-closet be adopted. In the second part of this essay I pull up stakes emphasize the costs and the benefits of this scheme, giving certain examples. I will in like manner try to explain in what sense it can increase detain for groups who are utilise terrorist strategies. In the end, I will state my conclusion, based on arguments.The strategy of preemption is based on taking the initiative and destroy terrorist networks out front they attack. This strategy can be applied by destroying terrorist camps or their covert places, or by assasinating them. This was the most outstanding strategy adopted by the scouring administration as a response to the terrorist attacks on 9/11. In September 2002, the President George Bush emphasised the need of utilize this str ategy in order to preempt attacks from states which may posses weapons of mass destruction. both(prenominal) wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were justified by the President of the U.S. as ways of preventing terrorism.(Haynes, Jeffrey. ball Politics. Harlow Longman/Pearson, 2011. Print) As it has recentely been adopted by the U.S, terrorism preemption could be specify as those offensive military and associated actions by the services and other enamor agencies that are initiated against terrorists, their organizations, backers,and sponsor states to prevent or deter acts or campaigns of terrorism directed against US citizens and interests.( Sloan, Stephen 200039 )The terrorist attacks on 9/11 had a great impact not only in U.S., but also on the whole multinational security context. Before these events, the im counterpoise and balance between the states be a normal geopolitical framework, but which was bad affected beca social function of the emergence and development of civil, non governmental and transnational organizations which took the shape of terrorist organizations. Washington is dealings with actions carried out by terrorist organizations including Al-Qaeda, which is the most classic. European Union may be destabilized quite seriously, if it will not manage effectively with the fate of millions of Islamists whose political culture is totally different from the liberal democratic system. There is express the idea that the destabilization of the current world order has its roots in Washingtons failure in Iraq. Also, it is quite certain that it could reach the same dissolver even if the U.S. intervened elsewhere than in Iraq or Afghanistan. It could reach the same result even if it did not intervene at all, anywhere, be practise the danger comes from non-state actors, who are driven to end the existence of states, civilizations and cultures that seem to be in conflict with their unearthly believes. (Amoore, Louise, and Marieke De Goede. Risk and th e state of war on Terror. London Routledge, 2008. Print.), (Baylis, John, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens. The Globalization of World Politics an Introduction to International Relations. New York, NY Oxford UP, 2008. Print.), (Chomsky Noam, Hegemonie sau supravieuire. America n cutarea dominaiei globale, Bucureti, Ed. Antet, 2003) rubbish against terrorism represents a war, strategies made in detail, not only large actions such as the counterblast of the U.S and their allies in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is a conflict that depends on political decisions, information technology and on the capability of mobilizing the resources. The year 2003 represented an great moment during this fight against terrorism, even from its beginning, when in March, the war started in Iraq. The campaign from Iraq is unique, characterized by shock, by the precise usage of the ammunition which occurred at a scale as has never been, and also by the use of overwhelming forces. Using well prepared strategies, allowed the execution of the operation in a sustained manner and minimized the collateral damage. (Amoore, Louise, and Marieke De Goede. Risk and the War on Terror. London Routledge, 2008. Print.)This brings me to the second part of this essay. Even if the good strategies apply during the war minimized the loss, the strategy of preemption remains very expensive in many ways. First of all, surveillance must be constant otherwise it will be impossible to prevent all the terrorist attacks. hourly, introduce all the possible terrorist activities is also a hard and expensive activity. to a greater extent than these, surveillance can violate the civil liberties of transparent citizens. Accomplishing all of these, an important amount of financial and human resources are needed. The key to an effective fight against terrorism is the accountability of the democratic states, a process of strengthening their institutional instruments, in order to apply better and strictly impose the l aw. In the same time, the democratic states have to be trained in an international cooperation of preventing and armed combat against terrorism from a political, economical, social and military perspective. The international cooperation is demand for an efficient monitoring system of the terrorist threat.( Andreescu, Anghel, and Nicolae Radu. Organizaiile Teroriste Conceptualizarea Terorii vs Securitatea European. Bucuresti M.I.R.A, 2008. Print.)Another trouble of this policy is that preemption itself is illegal under the international law, which makes it impossible to comprise it and to be supported by many countries. There is though an expulsion of this law, an exception which allows a strategy of preemption when it is known for sure that a state will be attacked. This law appeared right after the Second World War, and because of that it refers to a military threat from other states. Regarding the fact that terrorist networks act on their own, without asking approval from an y state, the strategy of preemption can not be approved by the UN. (Shue, Henry, and David Rodin. Preemption Military natural process and Moral Justification. Oxford Oxford UP, 2007. Print.)Of course, making public the adoption of such strategy of fighting against terrorism in certain areas, can draw the attention of the terrorist groups and they can use these information to prepare themselves. This will make defeating them much harder and will take much longer than expected. Using preemption as a long term strategy and by attacking all the plurality involved in terrorist activities, terrorists will be able to adapt themselves and be prepared for a war, knowing the strategies of the target country from previous attacks. This is why, from a practical perspective, this strategy can be used only on a short term. (Chomsky Noam, Hegemonie sau supravieuire. America n cutarea dominaiei globale, Bucureti, Ed. Antet, 2003 )The most important aspect is, when talk of the town about a strate gy of preemption, the amount of property spent on financing the war which will prevent a terrorist attack. Since the events on 9/11, the U.S. spent a huge amount of cash in order to financially support the war of terror. The Americans invaded Iraq because, as Bush administration affirmed, it was financially supporting terrorism and was possessing weapons of mass destruction. This onslaught caused asymmetry in the U.S economy. The economist Joseph Stiglitz said in 2008 that the U.S adventure in Iraq is more than expensive than any war that has ever been fought. More than that, 4.421 Americans died when the invasion started, in March 2003 and 32.000 were hurt during the attacks. Almost 100.000 of Iraqi citizens died during the war. In 2009, the U.S. military expenses numbered $663,3 mld, but according to the Congressional Research Service, the costs of the war will be around $802 mld at the and of 2011.(Rosca, Cristina, and Andreea Neferu. US Ended the War in Iraq. financial New spaper 1 Sept. 2010. Print.) As it can be seen, the costs of a preemtive war are very high, and not only from a financial point of view. Besides the costly military operations and the suffering caused to civilians, the strategy of preemption also leads to a ruined infrastructure. After the terrorist threat will be removed, more funds will need to be allocated to pay for the reparations that the war caused.Another fact that needs to be noticed when talking about preemption is that foreign countries may find this strategy a disproportionate response to the terrorist threat. Because, by definition, preemptive actions occures before a terrorist attack, the target countries may have good reasons to exaggerate the real threat . Also, because predictions can be sometimes deviant, other states may remain skeptical on this strategy when a country adoptes it. The decision that the Bush administration took regarding the invasion of Afghanistan was seen by many states necessary and totally just ified after the attacks on 9/11. On the other hand, the decision of expanding the war from Afghanistan to Iraq, which was never coupled with the terrorist attacks that took place on 9/11, excepting by the Bush administration, made bulk from all around the world to fear a possible invasion. Now, the countries global were at risk of preemptive war if they were accused for terrorism actions or for financially supporting terrorism. Many foreign governments opposed to this actions which was seen by them as a violation of the sovereignty of a country.(Haynes, Jeffrey. World Politics. Harlow Longman/Pearson, 2011. Print.)Using the strategy of preemption, even for fighting against terrorism, can result in more support from the sight for those who are carrying out the attacks. As I have mentioned above, preemptive actions can cause many damages in the states accused by terrorist actions. Ruining the infrastructure of a country, and more than that, causing suffering to innocent civilians will make the citizens of that country fight against the state that attacked them, and even support the terrorist networks. In the case of the U.S actions, even if they gained many allies to fight with against terrorism, the Americans also made many enemies in the countries they attacked.When talking about preemption, some people sustain the idea of self-defence, justifying the actions that need to be taken according to this strategy. early(a) people, espacially those who opposed to the Iraq War, deny the fact that a preemptive action could be ever justified. (Shue, Henry, and David Rodin. Preemption Military Action and Moral Justification. Oxford Oxford UP, 2007. Print.)In conclusion, the strategy of preemption, used in fighting against terrorism is not totally effective. Even if it seems to remove the terrorist threat and it is seen in some countries as one of the beat out actions that a stat can adopt against terrorism, it can be very costly because of the military operations t hat it involves. On a first sight it seems to be working but, in order to state this sentance, the damages that it may cause need to be excluded. It can violate the civil rights, it seems to have a lack of legitimacy, creates suffering among civilians, can make more people suport the terrorist networks and, in all likelihood the most important aspect, it can not be adopted for a long term period.