Terrorism is a major subject that has attracted many authors with an intention to give a brief idea on what terrorism is, its effects and the groups that form it, among other relevant subjects like the effects and threat analysis that are brought forth by terrorism. Homeland Security and Terrorism is a book written to cover wider aspects of terrorism. The basic overview presented in this book is the cause and the best way to deal with terrorism. It also reflects the historical background information that was witnessed during the Cold War. The book defines threat as a warning that is posed by the available information creating uncertainty of the subject area (Sauter, 2005). On this area, the book creates a picture by which terror groups pose to the targeted nation, hence creating an option of defending their territory as well as pursuing the threat itself. To analyze the threat, the author has cited various techniques and methods that will basically help the security and the civilians on the best way to curb the vice.
Russ Howard believes that there is a formidable base which indicates that there was certainty and transparency in the US-Soviet confrontation during the Cold War. The main reason behind this notion is that the vice that was being pursued by the USA was worth being pursued by all means. Insecurity in the homeland due to the threat posed by a terror group or any other nation needs to be resolved. Basically, threats create uncertainty to the affected nation both economically and socially hence killing the nation’s growth. In this modern era, terrorism should be treated in the same manner. This story shows that terrorism is another abject subject which needs to be addressed at all costs. Failure to address this major issue will cause the affected nations to stand to lose both economically and socially. With these facts held constant, war on terrorism is worth facing or implicates the will of the majority.
To challenge General Howard’s basis of argument in war on terror groups, one can only find it as a tool of discriminating and isolating some groups of people that belong to a certain region; and this is not fair. On the other hand, there is no war that can be said to be certain or transparent because of the nature in which the war gets executed or the circumstances under which it occurs. Most innocent citizens are affected directly leading to an extremely inhuman act. Instead of using war as the only way of curbing terrorism, other friendly means like sanctions should be applied. Cynthia C. Combs in her book “Terrorism In The Twenty First Century”, also holds the same feelings stating that friendly means should be employed to avoid possible risks of war (Sauter, 2005)..
Apart from these losses caused by war, one must also note that war is also expensive and financially drains the economy; thus, we should never encourage it. Another strong justification to avoid war is that, even if there is a high need to deal with terrorism, our actions have a long-term effect that can be passed to our children, hence making our homeland risky forever. To avoid this situation of creating a permanent enemy, war on terror should be personalized by not basing it on a religion or a community.
For the continuity of the homeland security, our leaders should always avoid using inhuman solutions which later haunt our homeland affairs. All human beings should be treated equally and those with terrorism element should be dealt with individually. On the same hand, security intelligence should be enhanced to stabilize the homeland security.
2. Pay riding is the act of some nations act in retaliation to sell or reduce offer of a public good, that is offered by others with the aim convincing terrorists to attack elsewhere. In this case, ally members cooperate with the United States while having something of value of the terrorists. Fratiani (2005) gives an example of Saudi Arabia which supports antiterrorism campaign by USA but is a home to Wahabism, a terror organisation.
In the case of free riding, the countries do not incur any cost in effect to the international policy of antiterrorism but instead concentrate in its own national security affairs or ignore completely the policy and proceed its own objectives (Masclet, Mirza, Montmarquette, 2011).
It is cost effective to spend millions of dollars to fight terrorism, even if they are few individuals. The effect of terrorism is far much greater than the as they progress with their activities unabated. They are not limitless to the geographical borders of USA alone but where citizens of USA have an interest of any nature, social, political or economic. When they attack these supposed allies of USA, they disrupt normal functioning of economic activities of the countries besides the physical loss of property and lives. Due to the activities, countries such as Australia, Turkey, Kenya, Egypt, Greece etc suffer from loss of tourism-generated revenue. They widen the gap of globalisation because of fear of people resuming their normal economic development activities. People fear to fly, travel in underway cars, trains, because previous attacks on these infrastructure. Economic loss from these could be multiple and difficult to quantify, hence the need to use resources available to counter these terrorist activities.
3. Hardened border paradox is the borders between countries become so congested with physical barriers to counter terrorism but ironically do not achieve the aim and somehow, they become permeable. Examples include the Great Wall of Chin and the USA-Mexico border, Berlin Wall (Thurston, nd).
Open border paradox on the other hand is the effort by the United States to keep its borders, particularly the Southern border, and enhancing bilateral relations to keep the off illegal activities such as drug smuggling and terrorism. The paradox is such that while the country makes little effort to guard its borders, they do not experience the attacks. On the contrary, when they increase surveillance and close off the borders, the military experience more attacks and borders become more penetrable by terrorists and like groups.
For different reasons and at varying scales USA has always been at war, either directly or indirectly. The reason is by default rather than design. The country is a symbol of freedom, power, democracy, and equality. They defend these principles regardless of the cost and because of these firm belief, they find themselves opposing those opposed to it directly or indirectly. As a world superpower, the country feels it has the moral obligation to stand against anything that opposes basic human rights of survival and security. Its opposition to communism as was witnessed in Korea where they supported free economy as opposed to communism was an example of economic freedom that it upholds. World problems are many and solving them makes it seem like a normal duty for USA. Therefore,” we have come just to know that 56% of the time, we are at war.”S
References
Sauter, M., & Carafano, J. J. (2005). Homeland security: a complete guide to understanding, preventing, and surviving terrorism. New York: McGraw-Hill.
