Congratulations - you have just completed your first role-play! In this post, I am going to ask that you consider some points of emphasis regarding US policy on terrorism. Next, I am also asking that you think about what you heard in deliberations today and then decide perhaps on a different option. One that you feel is more representative of your own thoughts and ideas on how best the US should deal with terrorism.
First - tell me the order in which, from most to least, of the options you agree or identify with - you do this by writing about the one you most closely agree with and why, and then list out the other three options (i.e. 3,1,2).
Second, tell me what your own idea is on terrorism. Provide that in your post with some details and reasons why you think this option is the 'best'. Be sure to be persuasive with substantial evidence on your views. You cannot just say - Bring the Battle to Terrorism - and nothing else. I want the WHY here - list as many reasons why you are thinking this way. Your option 5 can be a blending of two options or something completely different. It is entirely up to you.
All of these options contain many flaws. There really is no ideal way to combat terrorism without making more enemies or potential terrorists. Despite the many issues that could arise by choosing any of the 4 options, I say option 4 would be a good way to go. This option plans on attacking the cause of terrorism before terrorism itself can even develop. It is the most diplomatic way of doing things which is why it bodes better with me than the other three. By addressing the causes of terrorism and the people - typically repression of majority population groups and fiscally minority groups - we are also addressing worldly issues. This seems like the most peaceful and humanitarian option to go about addressing terrorism. By using this method, America can soften up it's "assassin" like image to the Middle East and focus back on the people and their rights. My other options goes as follows:
ReplyDelete1
2
3
My own opinion on terrorism is that it's counter productive. It's meant to terrorize the people - which it's good at that - and convey some sort of political message. Well the act of terror itself is such a big deal that the political message isn't even acknowledged. If you ask any pedestrian off the street what ISIS advocates for or what they started advocating for, more likely than not they would say ISIS started advocating for a religious cause over a rebellious one. After the PBS Frontline special we know that this is wrong. The point I'm making is that they do all of their terror acts in the name of allah and that's what people see. It makes us forget about or not even recognize their political motivation. Back to option 4 and why I think it's the best, well I just would put it ahead of the others. Let's start form the bottom up with option 3. The U.S. is stubborn. We are not going to want to voluntarily give the information and money we have to some international counsel. The U.S. would want full control of their resources. It's already hard enough for the U.S. to decide what to do with their money, but to put it in the power of others hands would just make things more complicated. Option 2 would just be too bold for America. We would not turn to isolationism while having the biggest military and the most global influence. As nice as it would be to focus our money at home, we would just create more enemies when we turn down their pleas for help. AS for option 1, this has a similar problem with enemies. We would definitely be making long lasting enemies by engaging ourselves in terror combatant fighting anywhere where there is terrorism. Not mention, this is also the most costly method. According to 2013 we invested of $600 billion on military expenditures. While taking all of these flaws into consideration, My option would be to cut back. I'm fine with fighting terrorism, but we obviously aren't doing it efficiently considering we're spending have of the world's military expenditure budget and there's still terrorism in our areas of interest. By cutting back, we can invest our money in smarter more efficient technology such as drones, improve diplomatic relations with other nations, and bring home some troops. I'm not saying to remove our influence totally, I'm just suggesting efficiency within our military and our budget.
The option from the packet that I most closely agree with is option number one, leading an assault on terrorism. As of right now, we could be under attack, but we are not because we are fighting the terrorists far away from our homeland. While we still have safe citizens in the US we must defeat the threats that could come in the future to our citizens with preemptive strikes. Yes protecting the homeland is important, but fighting terror far from our country is its own way of protecting us from it reaching our own soil.
ReplyDelete1342
Although the option I most strongly agree with is option one, I really think that there should be more done on the political side of things while we are fighting the terrorists. They do have a purpose, they feel that they have been served injustice, and in many cases these groups have been. We need to fight the terrorist on a physical level to protect our country and its people, but we must also talk to and work with the leaders of the countries and groups who are facing conflicts, and try to work with them to solve the problems that are arising. This could take very long, as option four says, so in the mean time we still do need to bring the fight to the terrorists, in a indirect way pf protecting the homeland.
I believe option 4 is the best way to deal with terrorism. If the United States wants to end terrorism then it needs to consider that our political stance towards the the Islamic world has been around for quite a long time, and has contributed to the rise of violent extremism. In addition, the US needs to focus on the idea that terrorism is a symptom, not a disease. The disease is injustice and prejudice, whereas terrorism is the natural response to fighting such principles. If we join with the world's wealthier countries we could fix the unjust political system of the Middle East, and help the inhabitants establish a government under which all people receive fair treatment.
ReplyDelete1
3
2
I strongly believe that the United States should fight for the civic values on which this country was built. In fact, we should be fighting against corrupt governments in the Middle East that are treating people unfairly. However, we shouldn't continue the military tactics that we are now using. We should take William Tecumseh Sherman's Total War idea that he instituted during the Civil War and put it to use in the Middle East. The Total War idea included destroying the enemies source of food, destroying towns and villages that could potentially raise an army, and eliminating the source of economic income for that country. Once the enemy has been thoroughly eradicated then you could propose a system of reconstruction that would build the country back up using the ideals you stand for. By doing this, the US ensures that the enemy will not rise back up and that the people of that nation will stand for democratic principles and ultimately justice.
I believe option 4 is the best way to deal with terrorism because it avoids putting troops on the ground and it solves the causes of terrorism. If the causes are solved then there is no need for terrorism since most groups are formed due to poverty and lack of social and political voices. I think it is the most logical way since wars on terrorism can lack decades without any long term change, like in Afghanistan and Iraq.
ReplyDelete1,3,2
I believe that the U.S. has a responsibility to help people up rise against oppressive governments for democracy. By solving the corruption and poverty in the Middle East, it will be harder to get recruits to join terrorist groups because these people now have something to lose.
2 is a good idea, but the likely hood of getting everyone to come together and work as a team is hard to handle. Option 1 is something that has destroyed hundreds of civilian lives and been more effective destroying communities than it has been at attacking militants. Focusing on the home front makes sense but having a good offense doubles as a defense. Also concerning protecting citizens, it's not as if we take some kind of mildly offensive we are unable to also have defenses up in the United States.
ReplyDeleteI agree most with option number two, to get the UN involved and get many countries involved in the fight against terrorism. Power comes in numbers. The more countries that come together to fight ISIS or any other terrorist group out there, the more resources we would have. If we combine our money, weapons, and intelligence with other countries money, weapons, and intelligence we will have a better chance at defeating terrorist groups across the country.
ReplyDelete2134
I believe we should come at the terrorist economically rather than with troops on the ground. If we are able to cut off all of their funding we can shut them down. We need to fund groups fighting for democracy and civil rights. If we can eliminate the money that is being wired into terrorist groups they will lose their ways of getting weapons and when their weapons and money dry up their power will end.
The option from the packet that I think is the best is option 2. I recognize that terrorism is a big problem and poses a threat to the United States. The last thing anyone wants is another terrorist attack on American soil. Therefore, we have to be aggressive in fighting terrorism. That being said, terrorism is an international issue, and has to be dealt with on an international level. In order to completely eliminate any threat of terrorism to the United States, we have to eliminate all terrorist groups around the world. In order to do so, we need the help of other nations.
ReplyDeleteIf I could make my own option of combating terrorism, I would combine options 2 and option 4. Option 2 is perfect for addressing the immediate threat of terrorism, eliminating groups that already exist. Option 4 will help to protect against terrorism in the future. Addressing the root causes of terrorism will theoretically prevent terrorist groups from forming in the first place.By exercising both options, we could eliminate terrorism completely, now and for the foreseeable future.
Combating terrorism is a very challenging thing to do. Many of the options we've been given may be problematic, but I most strongly support option 4 and option 1. If we only address the root causes of terrorism, we can better understand It's motivations but that is not enough to help prevent it in the future. I think we must lead an assault on terrorism, because we should not tolerate and stand for this. Drones would be helpful for identifying terrorists before attacks happen. We don't want to bring terrorism and war to our own country, so we must start now on fighting terrorism.
ReplyDeleteOf all the options given, I most closely agree with option 4. I believe that option 4 would be the best course of action. When an issue presents itself, going straight to the root of the problem has always been the solution. Most terrorist groups arise from anger with the government. For example, the Chechens wanted to be independent from Russia. If someone (like the United States) were to have made an attempt to instill a democratic government, the Chechen acts of terror would not have occurred. 2, 3, 1
ReplyDeleteIf I were to conduct an act against terrorism, I would use the United Nations combined with a quest for democracy. By using the UN, the issue of terrorism does not lie on one specific country. It focuses on the immediate threat of terrorism, along with diminishing terrorism wherever it may be found. By supporting the people of the Middle East in their quest for democracy, terrorism is being prevented in the future.
Out of the four options in your packet, I strongly support and believe in option number one. I feel like this is the only logical way to approach terrorism. We can't just sit back and let other countries get attacked, we are the worlds super power and we need to use that power to our advantage. If a country over seas has a terrorist attack I believe it is the US responsibility to help and use whatever means necessary to address the problem.
ReplyDelete1,3,4,2
Although I believe in option 1, lead an assault on terrorism I think some actions should be taken before we send troops overseas. Perhaps negotiating with the country/terrorist group. If we negotiated with the country rather than sending troops over there right away, it could save many lives. If the negotiations didn't work, I think we need to send more troops. A bigger army calls for a bigger fight and if we want to lead an assault on terrorism we need all the troops we can get to address the problem quickly and efficiently.
Looking at the four options I would agree most with the approach of option 2. I don't see why other powerhouse countries shouldn't get involve along with us in the fight against terrorism. I think it is more effective if countries worked together. I don't believe that the U.S. should be the only ones dedicating all their money and resources for this cause. Terrorism is a global problem and it is a big problem. So therefor we need everybody working together trying to take down these powerful terrorist organizations.
ReplyDeleteI would rank these options 2,4,1,3. I do think option 4 is a good idea. However it would be really costly financially and there is no guarantee that helping these middle eastern countries will end these small hatred groups from forming. All it takes is small group of radicals to do significant damage. Option 1 I disagree with because we have killed many innocent civilians with our methods to fight terrorism. I think it is a better move to strategically work together with other countries to try to find these groups and then strike. With option 3, I think that the U.S. needs to go out and stop these groups before they become too powerful. Being isolationist for this issue is not a good solution.