Should+the+US+direct+an+expanded+assault+on+international+terrorism?

**__Should the US direct an expanded assault on international terrorism?__**
 * Meeting scheduled **__March 9, 2010__**
 * At the bottom of this page you will find the discussion area
 * Feel free to add any of your comments to this page


 * __What is TERRORISM ?__ **

Anglim || An act of terrorism involves the deliberate harm of innocent people with the intent to instill fear amongst the civilian population of the targeted group. || Mom || "Terrorism is the act of destruction against another person or country" || As you can see, there are many ways in which people define "terrorism". Some specify that it terrorism must involve political demands, while other definitions seem very vague about who can actually be classified as a terrorist. I gave a shot at giving my own definition and also asked my mom. While I specify that terrorism must be against innocent people, my mom did not. Not only is the word terrorism argued in its meaning amongst scholars, but it is also debated amongst ourselves.
 * 1987 || L. Ali Khan || "Terrorism sprouts from the existence of aggrieved groups. These aggrieved groups share two essential characteristics: they have specific political objectives, and they believe that violence is an inevitable means to achieve their political ends. The political dimension of terrorist violence is the key factor that distinguishes it from other crimes." ||
 * 1988 || [|Schmid]and Jongman || "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-)clandestine individual, group, or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal, or political reasons, whereby—in contrast to assassination—the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are use to manipulate the main target (audience(s), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought". ||
 * 1989 || [|JackGibbs] || "Terrorism is illegal violence or threatened violence directed against human or nonhuman objects, provided that it: (1) was undertaken or ordered with a view to altering or maintaining at least one putative norm in at least one particular territorial unit or population: (2) had secretive, furtive, and/or clandestine features that were expected by the participants to conceal their personal identity and/or their future location; (3) was not undertaken or ordered to further the permanent defense of some area; (4) was not conventional warfare and because of their concealed personal identity, concealment of their future location, their threats, and/or their spatial mobility, the participants perceived themselves as less vulnerable to conventional military action; and (5) was perceived by the participants as contributing to the normative goal previously described (supra) by inculcating fear of violence in persons (perhaps an indefinite category of them) other than the immediate target of the actual or threatened violence and/or by publicizing some cause." ||
 * 1992 || [|Alex P. Schmid] || short legal definition proposed to the [|United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime]: "Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime". ||
 * 1997 || [|Rosalyn Higgins] || Judge at the[|International Court of Justice], "Terrorism is a term without any legal significance. It is merely a convenient way of alluding to activities, whether of States or of individuals widely disapproved of and in which wither the methods used are unlawful, or the targets protected or both.“ ||
 * 2002 || [|Walter Laqueur] || "Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted." ||
 * 2002 || [|James M. Poland] || "Terrorism is the premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience". ||
 * 2004 || [|M. Cherif Bassiouni] || "'Terrorism' has never been defined..." ||
 * 2004 || [|David Rodin] || "Terrorism is the deliberate, negligent, or reckless use of force against noncombatants, by state or nonstate actors for ideological ends and in the absence of a substantively just legal process." ||
 * 2005 || [|Boaz Ganor] || "Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence aimed against civilians in order to achieve political ends" ||
 * 2007 || [|Daniel D. Novotny] || "An act is terrorist if and only if (1) it is committed by an individual or group of individuals privately, i.e. without the legitimate authority of a recognized state; (2) it is directed indiscriminately against non-combatants; (3) the goal of it is to achieve something politically relevant; (4) this goal is pursued by means of fear-provoking violence." ||
 * 2008 || [|Carsten Bockstette] || "Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states." ||
 * 2008 || [|Darul Uloom Deoband] || Anti-Terrorism Conference: Any action that targets innocents, whether by an individual or by any government and its agencies or by a private organisation anywhere in the world constitutes, according to Islam, an act of terrorism. ||
 * 2008 || [|Tamar Meisels] || advocates a consistent and strict definition of terrorism, which she defines as "the intentional random murder of defenseless non-combatants, with the intent of instilling fear of mortal danger amidst a civilian population as a strategy designed to advance political ends." ||
 * 2010 || Kevin
 * 2010 || My

In order to excel in this debate, you must have a clear meaning in your head of what defines a terrorist. Can they only be found in the Middle East? Is terrorism parallel with religious extremism? Are all terrorist groups "grassroot" organizations, or can they be more structured? Are insurgents terrorists? Click this link to view a table of what major world powers consider terrorist organizations. It is very interesting to see the varied opinions on which organizations are terrorist, and which are not..... It's a pretty loaded word.

Watch this **__great__ video about definitions of terrorism and how they vary: media type="youtube" key="lGNLihR8EiY" height="364" width="445"

 __Basic History of the War on Terrorism__ Below are extremely basic little facts about the course of war over the past nine years. I encourage you to look on wikipedia for more information about important events and concepts about the War on Terrorism. Again, there is so much more to learn than the little amount below.

__What started the War?__ ** __Why Iraq?__ **
 * The attacks of ** September 11, 2001 ** were the first major attacks on American soil since the attacks on Pearl Harbor.
 * Like the attacks on Pearl Harbor, many Americans saw September 11th as a ** declaration of war **.
 * The CIA quickly determined that the suicide hijackers were members of the terrorist organization, ** al-Qaeda **, which was founded and led by ** Osama bin Laden **.
 * The US knew that we needed to retaliate against al-Qaeda and found many connections between the September 11 attacks and the ** Taliban ** rule of ** Afghanistan **.
 * George Bush stated many demands to the Taliban rule in Afghanistan including handing over bin Laden and allowing the US access to all of their terrorist bases.
 * The Taliban refused, and shortly after the US began its attack on Afghanistan on ** Oct. 7, 2001 **
 * The US attack on Afghanistan is formally known as ** Operation Enduring Freedom ** and its main goals were to remove the Taliban rule which harbored al-Qaeda and combat the terrorists themselves.
 * In 2002, rumors started spurring that Iraq contained ** weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) ** that could potentially be a threat to the United States.
 * During the ** Gulf War **, the US intervened to defend Kuwait from being overtaken by Iraq and it worried the US elite that ** Saddam Hussein ** , the Iraqi leader, still has resentment towards the United States because of this.
 * The United States found it necessary to invade Iraq because it was a threat to our security. The House voted ** 296-133 ** on supporting the invasion and the senate voted ** 77-23 ** . As you can see, there was much support for this war at this time and both Barack Obama and Joe Biden actually voted in support of the invasion.
 * The US was not able to obtain authorization by the **UN** to use military force against Iraq, but the US and **NATO** forces went ahead and officially began the invasion to remove the Hussein regime on **March 20, 2003**.
 * Hussein and his **Baath Party** were overthrown by **May 1, 2003** which is when the official invasion ended, but no WMDs were found.
 * Although Hussein was taken down, the fighting in Iraq still remained from insurgency groups that grew during the invasion.


 * __Post Invasion and Barack Obama__ **
 * In Iraq, fighting continued between allied NATO forces and Iraqi **insurgents** even after an official Iraqi government was formed in January of 2005.
 * Although troops remained in Afghanistan, more of an emphasis was put on Iraq throughout the Bush administration.
 * Throughout the Bush administration, small scale fighting also occurred in the **Philippines**, the **Horn of Africa**, and the **Trans Sahara**.
 * When Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, he promised many changes in terms of the War on Terror.
 * One of these changes was to change the name from War on Terror to **Overseas Contingency Operation**.
 * He promised a responsible end to the Iraq War, but there is still not a definite time-frame for when American troops will hand over their responsibilities to the Iraqis.
 * The biggest change in the Obama policy was the emphasis on Afghanistan. The US has realized that al-Qaeda has moved its location to the area between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
 * Obama sent an extra **30,000 troops** this year to Afghanistan and increased the number of **air strikes**.
 * The **Pakistani** government has also been facing problems on their border and their relationship with the United States is developing quickly.
 * **Osama bin Laden** has still not been captured by any military forces yet. The whereabouts of his location are still unknown.
 * Lastly, since 9/11, **53** Americans have been killed on US soil as a result of **28** attacks by **Muslim Extremists**.
 * Check out this nine page NYT article about Obama's handling of terrorism if you really want some info: click here


 * __ For the Debate: __ **

Be sure to receive the Options packet from Kevin Anglim. It contains information about each of the options but remember, you don't have to align yourself with just one of these. They are just ideas for the big picture.

** __Option 1: Direct an Expanded Assault on Terrorism__ ** The United States cannot tolerate acts of terrorism, those who perpetrate them, or those nations who harbor terrorists. As the sole remaining superpower, we have no choice but to take on the job of policeman. It is our responsibility and duty to protect ourselves and make the world safe from terrorists. We must recognize that the war on terrorism is a worldwide struggle and move forward with a worldwide offensive to combat it until all who threaten peace and security are destroyed. Although, as we have seen, it is helpful to have the cooperation of other nations, we must be prepared to fight terrorism - alone if necessary - wherever and whenever it threatens. Nothing less than our freedom is at stake.
 * What should we do?**
 * We should take the war on terrorism to any nation that harbors international terrorists.
 * We should devote more of our resources to our military forces.
 * We should increase our intelligence capacity.
 * We should freeze the assets of suspected terrorist organizations and put pressure on other governments to do the same.
 * We should encourage and work with any indigenous forces willing to fight a terrorist group and the government that supports it.

This sounds like Option 1 to me: media type="youtube" key="IxYQ2wVNWGg" height="360" width="580"

** __Option 2: Support UN Leadership to Fight Terrorism__ ** Terrorism is a global, not a national, problem. Today our security and the security of the rest of the civilized world depend upon our ability to work together, drawing on our combined financial, diplomatic, and intelligence resources, to address this universal threat. We must recognize the U.N. as the entity with the legitimacy to develop and maintain a long-term, truly international effort to control and eventually wipe out terrorism worldwide. We must play a leadership role in strengthening the effectiveness of the U.N. on security matters and offer our military, intelligence, and of the U.N. on security matters and offer our military, intelligence, and economic support to a U.N.-led international effort to eradicate terrorist cells wherever they are found. We must stand with the world community against lawless terror.

__**What should we do?**__
 * We should lead efforts to strengthen the hand of the UN on security matters. This includes taking steps to turn over leadership in post-war Iraq to the UN.
 * We should debate any response to future terrorist acts against the United States before the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council and abide by the Council's decisions.
 * We should become a member of the International Criminal Court and prosecute international terrorists there.
 * We should ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), and we should work with the UN to strengthen the conventions limiting chemical and biological weapons.

A UN anti-terrorism expert tells about the UN's role in combating terrorism: media type="youtube" key="GDH2bbbI9ZY" height="360" width="580"

** __Option 3: Defend Our Homeland__ ** The September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have given us a feeling of vulnerability not felt in more than fifty years. Our high-profile foreign policy programs have only bred resentment against us and made us enemies who are intent on doing us harm. This is especially true of our troops based in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf region. We would be foolhardy to expand our international efforts into a wider assault on terrorism. Taking sides in the battles of other nations will only increase our own vulnerability by drawing the attention of a wider circle of terrorists. It is time now to turn our attention to our own needs here at home. We must lower our foreign policy profile, get ourselves out of the sights of terrorists, and use the funds saved to build up our national defenses. While civil liberties are important to Americans, we must recognize that new policies are needed at home to protect our security.

__**What should we do?**__
 * We should scale back our foreign involvement by cutting foreign aid programs and reducing our military presence abroad - especially in the Middle East.
 * We should build up our intelligence capacity with a focus on understanding the threats that face us here at home.
 * We should launch a coordinated national effort to develop defenses against the new threats that face us - biological, chemical, or nuclear attacks.
 * We should establish a national identity card, tighten immigration laws, closely watch high-risk ethnic groups, and allow broader monitoring of communications in order to keep tabs on potential terrorists.

Michael Cutler speaks about how tighter immigration regulations will bring security: media type="youtube" key="6iNDnAM1-DM" height="364" width="445"

** __Option 4: Address the Underlying Causes of Terrorism__ ** Terrorism is inexcusable. Crimes against humanity cannot be tolerated. However, further military action will only perpetuate the cycle of violence. We must abandon any plans for future military action and join with others to address the deeper issues underlying terrorism. Terrorism feeds on the frustrations of some of the world's most disadvantaged peoples. Clearly we must devote resources to improving security in our own country. However, we must also join with the developed world to devote attention and resources to launching a targeted "Marshall Plan" that addresses the underlying causes of terrorism. Finally, we must examine our own policies in many parts of the world to see that we are not inflaming long-standing local and regional conflicts, fueling discontent, and creating a breeding ground for anti-American sentiment. 


 * __ What should we do? __**
 * We should provide resources in support of the UN's reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. We should also turn control of the reconstruction effort in post-war Iraq over to the UN and provide whatever aid is necessary to ensure a successful transition to self-rule and peacetime economy in Iraq.
 * We should refocus our funding priorities to improve the quality of life of disadvantaged populations around the world.
 * We should work for just resolutions to long-term political conflicts (such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) that provide breeding grounds for terrorism.
 * We should end our support to regimes that do not support human rights and democratic principles.

Khaled Yassen, a prominent American Muslim, speaks about the Taliban (it's different from what we usually hear): media type="youtube" key="Z6wbrw8uthM" height="364" width="445"

<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive; font-size: 25px;">__Perspectives (go to__ Choosing your International Perspective <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive; font-size: 25px;">__):__


 * Realists don't really align themselves clearly with one option. It'd actually be a combination of Option 1 and Option 3 because Realists would focus on our own security and the power struggle. **


 * Radicals ** would support **Option 4**. They believe that the only reason terrorism exists is because of the imperialistic actions of the world's powers. It doesn't help that these countries are fighting something that they created. Understanding the origins would be best for the Radicals.


 * Liberals ** would strongly support ** Option 2 ** . International Organizations are part of the Liberal's theory that the world can be structured when all of the nations work together. The Liberals love the UN and believe that strengthening it would help more than anything in the fight against terrorism. The UN is central to Liberal belief.

**Constructivists** would also support **Option 4**. They focus on the individual aspect of events and understanding the roots of terrorism is where constructivists think you should begin.

include component="comments" page="Should the US direct an expanded assault on international terrorism?" limit="10" -Kevin Anglim

__Add your questions/comments here:__

-