Introduction
This is a review of the Congressional Research Service report on International Terrorism, the focus being on threat, policy, and response issues. The report was completed on January 3, 2007.
Terrorism refers to the organized use of fear or fright, in particular as a way of compulsion. The practice has been used by a wide range of opinionated associations for promoting their objectives. It has been used by both right-leaning and left-leaning opinionated organizations, xenophobic groupings, spiritual groups, activists and reigning administrations, among others. An enduring feature is the haphazard use of brutality against opponents for the aim of attaining exposure for a group, campaign, or entity.
The spotlight in this study is on the United States and areas covered as mentioned are global terrorist activities, threats, and responses. It assesses if it is true as reported how the nation uses resources at its reach to battle terrorism. Some of the approaches it states that have been used are negotiation, intercontinental collaboration, productive engagement, corporeal protection improvement, economic penalties, concealed exploits, and armed forces action (Scheider, 2009, p. 48).
It is true what the report says that at present the drift in terrorism leans toward freely arranged self-funded, global associations of terrorists. All the time more, extremist Islamist groupings, or organizations using religious conviction as a red herring, stand as a stern threat to United States’ welfare and to other nations believing in the same ideals. Of worry also is the ever increasing political chipping in of radical Islamist parties in overseas nations. Also worth mentioning is the evident escalation of cross-national connections among various terrorist associations, which may entail blends of armed forces training, financing, skill transfer, or political instruction. It has emerged that, for instance, the Al Qaeda has links touching various war-torn Islamic nations across the world.
The Threat of Terrorism
The report cites that all the time more, global terrorism is distinguished as a danger to United States overseas, as well as internal safety. This is very true considering that the most wanted terrorist leaders have reiterated that they have a thing against the US. Both the time(s) when terrorists may carry out their acts and their target choice can have an effect on US interests in sectors varying from safeguarding of trade and industry to nuclear non-propagation to the Middle East peace course.
A rising number of observers reiterate unease that extremist associations seek to make use of fiscal and political instabilities in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Indonesia and other nations (Scheider, 2009, p. 60). Due to their affirmed aim of causing the downfall of Western-leaning administrations in some nations with great Muslim populaces, such associations are perceived as a special intimidation to American overseas plan programs.
United States Policy Response
What the Congressional Research Service report entails as regards to the American response to terrorism is largely true. By and large, United States anti-terrorism strategy from the late 1970s to the mid-1990s laid emphasis on putting off and castigating state backers as opposed to extremist organizations themselves. However, in 1996 there was a vital move in strategy. An Act for the most part backed by the executive formed an authorized grouping of Foreign Terrorist Organizations and proscribed financing, awarding of travel documents and other material support to such associations (U.S. Department of Justice, 2005, p. 46). Later in 2001 another act, USA PATRIOT Act expanded and toughened the stipulations of that law.
Following 9/11, the American anti-terrorism strategy more and more laid emphasis on forestalling attacks from Al Qaeda, time and again by taking the ‘war’ to the terrain of the adversary. A corresponding area of strategy spotlight entails safeguarding the mother country from radical assaults and their after effects through protecting the boundaries, trimming down susceptibilities of significant infrastructures, boosting support and resources obtainable to regulation implementation and aptitude, and augmenting outcome management abilities. A key area of strategy emphasis rests in rebuffing and/or limiting access of weapons of mass destruction to deceitful and unreliable states and terrorist non-state players.
Dilemmas faced in the fight against international terrorism
The Congressional Research Service report is point on where it highlights the catch-22s that the nations that want to put a stop to terrorism find them in. Democratic nations are often finding themselves in a dilemma as they seek to fight terrorism in a contemporary political environment. This is as a result of contradictory objectives and modes of action. The contradiction comes about in offering protection from terrorist acts through restricting the liberty of individual terrorists, organization, and their backers, in opposition to upholding individual liberties, egalitarianism and human freedoms (U.S. Department of Justice, 2005, p. 49).
Reference List
Scheider, B., and Davis, J. (2009). Avoiding the abyss: progress, shortfalls and the way ahead in combating the WMD threat. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 48 – 60. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General, Audit Division. Review of the Terrorist Screening Center, Audit Report 05-27. p. 46 – 49.