Strategies in Combating Future Terrorism

Combating Future Terrorism
Name
Institution
Combating Future Terrorism
The fight against terrorism in the United States (U.S.) has intensified since the events of 9/11 attacks. Similarly, terrorists’ activities have also become more sophisticated because terrorists have incorporated technology in their effort to commit mass terror. The U.S. has actually taken a frontline in the fight against terrorism at an international capacity because as noted by Choi and James (2016), terrorism is one of the major issues in security and foreign policy in the U.S. The intervention by the U.S. in terrorists-vulnerable countries is also one way of ensuring that terrorists lack the opportunity to bring terror into the U.S. In some way, this has prevented international terrorism in the U.S. because the fight has been taken to the source of the problem. However, it could also explain the high rise of domestic terrorism in the country. Berkebile (2015) reveal that domestic terrorism accounts for 80%-90% of the global terrorist attacks and in the U.S., it poses the greatest danger due to its wrecking effects. The U.S. is a democratic country where everyone has rights, and a voice and extremists have taken advantage of this to advance their agenda, giving rise to homegrown terrorism. With this in mind, this paper seeks to examine the nature of terrorism and strategies that can be utilized to fight terrorism, both at domestic and international levels. The paper will also provide an overview of the importance of preserving civil liberties and on the future of terrorism in the U.S.
Strategies to Prevent Future Terrorism
One of the strategies that the U.S. can utilize to combat future terrorism involves the formulation of socio-economic policies, especially from a foreign policy angle. Social and economic factors contribute to terrorism in different ways, and by addressing these factors at their root causes, the U.S. can be able to fight terrorism. As noted by Pettinger (2016), vulnerable communities are more prone to radicalization because terrorist organizations exploit their vulnerability by displaying concern for their welfare. Take for instance populations that face economic challenges in a capitalist country. Terrorist organizations can exploit this vulnerability by convincing them that the capitalists cause their economic disadvantages in the country and the only action they can take in order to liberate themselves is committing acts of terror. Bombings on banks or other institutions that are perceived as benefiting to capitalists are not a rare occurrence. This is not only an international terrorism approach but also a domestic one where people with extreme ideologies, such as those in support of socialism, use terrorism to force the government and the society into complying with their ideologies. Pettinger (2016) reveals that when terrorists target such vulnerable communities, they convince them that the only solution to their problems is to engage in mass brutality. To circumvent this, the U.S. can employ economic policies that empower these communities, thus eliminating their vulnerability to terrorist organizations’ purported sympathy.
From a cultural perspective, economic policies also seem like a better approach to counter-terrorism than military intervention, especially when dealing with vulnerable populations. This is because some cultural practices undermine the communities, leaving them vulnerable and voiceless. As revealed by Kluch and Vaux (2015), individuals from cultures/countries that have a high power distance index are prone to hopelessness and suffering, making them very tolerant of terrorism. This is because they are more welcoming to ideas of revolutions in pursuit of better governance. As such, these individuals will not be bothered by terrorism incidents as much as individuals from cultures with low power distance index. Communities that have been oppressed socially and economically due to cultural factors in their countries can benefit much from socio-economic strategies. The U.S. can invest in projects within these communities and ensure that the communities become economically empowered. Economic empowerment comes with benefits such as having a voice that matters. When communities realize the benefits of economic empowerment, they will become less tolerant of terrorism and will even work with the authorities in uncovering terrorists before they commit their terror acts. Economic strategies can thus be helpful when addressing communities that lack economic empowerment, hence tackling international terrorism. However, domestic terrorism in the U.S will require other intervention because homegrown terrorists are motivated by prejudices and ideologies rather than economic reasons. The U.S. is already an open society which has all the cultural dimensions that are less tolerant of terrorism, such as individualism and low power distance index (Kluch & Vaux, 2015). These dimensions are responsible for the vulnerable nature of certain cultures, especially economically, and their absence in the U.S. makes it difficult to term economic factors as reasons for the radicalization of citizens. Thus, fighting domestic terrorism would benefit from other strategies such as future legislation.
Domestic terrorism in the U.S., as noted earlier, poses a greater threat than international terrorism, hence the need for policy change as a second strategy. Countries such as the U.S. can deploy more stringent measures in the fight against terrorism when acts of terror are conducted by foreigners. However, the case is different when dealing with citizens. According to Ezcurra (2016), democratic countries such as the U.S. are a bit disadvantaged when it comes to fighting domestic terrorism because the strategies they can deploy are minimal, unlike in less democratic countries. This reveals that the fight against domestic violence is tougher and complex, hence more threatening. Walgrave (2015) suggests that using restorative justice to inform policy in the war against terror is the key to prevent future incidences of terrorism. This will prevent the cycle of violence that has risen as a result of the back and forth between the government and the terrorists. Take, for instance, terrorist organizations that recruit U.S. citizens and radicalize them to commit acts of terror. One of the motives behind such actions is the U.S.’s intervention in countries that are torn by terro...