How the American Public Perceives the War on Terror

How the American Public Perceives the War on Terror

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

How the American Public Perceives the War on Terror

            The American perception of the war on terror, which began as a response to the September 11 attacks, varies. The catastrophe required a change in the operations, policies, and attitudes in the fight against terrorism. Political discourse centered on discovering ways to keep America safe. Additionally, these discussions were aimed at ensuring that the fundamental laws, especially those associated with privacy and data security, were upheld. Integrated approach sought to involve local and international entities in intelligence sharing. After the tragedy, the 9/11 attacks changed foreign and immigration policies. It also changed the manner in which Americans formulated their identity with respect to the larger international community, as evidenced by their reaction to 9/11. Similarly, significant differences could be noted in both the literature and public conversations before and after the attack on 9/11. More value was placed on the role of intelligence, which facilitated information sharing and coordination among local and international anti-terrorism entities. However, the public agreed that the government should direct more resources and dedication towards achieving and maintaining a sophisticated national security framework.

            According to Costel and Tiberiu (2015), gathered information has an important role in the strategies aimed at preserving national security. The authors maintain that there is a need for increased level of coordination, not just within the country, but also with international partners and entities. Data collection is key to the development of strategies aimed at bolstering security, especially in the post 9/11 period. The pre 9/11 security framework proved ineffective, which prompted an overhaul of the structure to develop new methods of dealing with terrorism. These strategies were seen as feasible and realistic changes that were to enhance the capacity for security operations on a global scale. Costel and Tiberiu (2015) also emphasized the need to employ improved human resources strategies as a means of increasing connection between these entities and other relevant stakeholders.

            The authors also state that intelligence gathering gained importance since the 9/11 attacks, which scholars extensively covered in the literature, paying special attention to the significance, nature, and difficulty of data collection. Government directed more resources towards developing intelligence systems and technologies aimed at gathering information that assists in strengthening the American defense structures. In addition, the larger American public also recognizes the importance of data collection in counterterrorism operations.

            Similarly, Gallagher (2015) proposes that data collection needs to have a central role in developing national security strategies in America. The author provides the example of Project Solarium, which was developed by President Dwight Eisenhower. The aim of this political undertaking was to counter the Soviet expansion and contain their influence in the earlier years of the Cold War. Additionally, Project Solarium was geared towards ensuring that the senior staff and decision makers in President Eisenhower’s cabinet reached a consensus, for which the President believed was crucial to developing a strong and united front against adversaries during the Cold War. Central to this belief was the practice of gathering intelligence through various means.

For this reason, the president employed data collection as a key step that sparked conversations that are more critical on the foreign policy concerning the Soviet Union. It involved the formation of military, diplomatic, and political expert teams to obtain the much-needed information and participate in effective decision-making. Essentially, this intelligence provided a “common baseline of analysis” which sparked debates among the key decision makers (Gallagher, 2015). As a result, the author claims that the senior level administrative personnel considered information an important tool.

            From the perspective of a marine corps, Jones (2002) draws attention to some of the fundamentals of risk management, potential loss, and severity in cases of hazardous events often brought about by enemies, adversaries, or other undesirable situations. Leaders and other decision makers are responsible for identifying sources of threats. A systematic approach towards dealing with various threatening situations involves assessment of the potential courses of action and of enemy’s potential advantages, capabilities, and vulnerabilities.

            The leader’s perception and evaluation of the situation plays a highly critical role in dealing with potential threats. The public perception and support also offer a key advantage in various security enforcement operations such as maintenance of secure borders. Jones notes, “Perception influences the leaders’ decisions” (2002, pg 6). For this reason, there is a need to increase the level of transparency, which in turn allows the public to gain an insight into how operations enhance security on a national scale. In essence, the government, through the armed forces entities, strives to achieve objectives aimed at centering safety and efficiency in combat operations and information collection.

Among other factors, leaders need to consider the level of public reactions related to casualties, the impact of threatening situations on civilians, and loss of equipment (Jones, 2002). Additionally, it is important to acknowledge that the war on terror is a move aimed at protecting the interests of the public and, thus, the government needs to recognize the importance of an engaged, participating, and informed community and benefit from the public contributions, observing its reactions and suggestions on the course of future actions.

Kamien (2012) provides insight into homeland security operations and issues. These insights are provided from the perspective of national and international experts on foreign policy, international relations, military affairs, intelligence, and academia, among others. From these insights, the audience can develop a deeper insight into the intricacies of security issues and challenges in America and the larger world.

The public perception centers on the benefits and values of the information sharing practice, whether through political or social discourse. According to Kamien (2012), through the process of sharing experiences as a means of developing collaborative anti-terrorism efforts, the government took a number of critical actions in the post 9/11 period. In his book, Brian Jenkins speaks about the real threats of other forms of warfare, such as chemical and biological attacks. Although these are not common, security strategies need to consider them. Should these types of attacks take place, Senators Talent and Graham also offer insights into the need for effective response systems. To avoid catastrophic eventualities, it is important to ensure that these frameworks for response are in place and can be utilized at any time (Kamien 2012).

             According to Kamien, the real danger lays in underestimating the capabilities and motivations of terrorist organizations (2012). Over time, terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda grew to become highly interconnected on a global scale, which continuously presents new threats to the United States and its international allies. Furthermore, concentrating on one group and disregarding others may also lead to detrimental results. The author notes the importance of the development of an all-encompassing security framework, which considers all forms of adversaries, whether local or international.

            Further, the author has provided the perspectives of international relations experts, who reveal some of the political and social challenges the war on terror has encountered since its conception. Terrorist organizations such as the Al Qaeda in the countries of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) have developed their coordination and information sharing across their regional networks and cells. Consequently, they have become ever more “dangerous, resilient, and difficult to understand” (Kamien, 2012, pg 2). For this reason, they have been able to penetrate the administrative divisions and intelligent services. Subsequently, they have become an insidious part of the areas they target. A fundamental lack of insight into their true nature, motivations, and operations is a key challenge in winning the war on terror. Furthermore, the more powerful organizations will also possess tools to threat and influence areas in which they operate. In the case of AQIM, the Islamic Maghreb countries face challenges in addressing these terrorist systems because of the imminent threat to safety they represent.

            Expert John Morrison takes on a psychological approach in dealing with terrorism on a large scale. According to him, understanding the styles of engagement for these organizations is highly important for the development of counterterrorism tactics (Kamien, 2012). To perform effectively, terrorist organizations depend on the “heterogeneity of roles” performed. Consequently, efforts to counter terrorism must also be directed towards understanding these roles, which mostly center on both legal and illegal activities, internal and external influences, fluctuating responsibilities, and status of members therein (Kamien, 2012).

            According to Pain (2014), there exists a clear-cut relationship between domestic violence and global terrorism. The author addresses the roles of terrorist groups based on their political intentions. Similar to domestic violence, global terrorism is used as a tool to exert fear and subsequently control over others (Pain, 2014). The author explores the characteristics of domestic violence and international terrorism through the perspective of feminist political geography. The concept of fear is explored as a key attribute that shapes the relationships between the parties that exert violence and their victims. Violence also “includes psychological and emotional tactics including threats, isolation and undermining self-confidence” (Pain, 2014). This is seen in both types of violence, whether exerted in a local or global scale. Domestic violence is seen as a vice that affects people across all social and economic classes. Similarly, international terrorism is intended to strike fear within the same types of demographics, although on a larger scale. Victims of global terrorism do not typically exist within a specific social or economic class. The aim is to exert fear, which affects the capacity of defense entities such as intelligence operations, law enforcement, and legislators to operate effectively. Domestic violence and international terrorism against a group affect the physical and mental well-being of the victimized.  

            Furthermore, the feminist geographers have termed domestic violence as a form of “everyday terrorism” although they differ in some areas. However, the same concept of terrorism and physical and psychological violence infliction is aimed at the subjugation of individuals and groups. From their perspective on terrorism and violence, the feminist geographers acknowledge the fragile relationships that exist between people in these relationships. For the intimate domestic relationships, violence ensues in the periods after the relationships have broken down, creating avenues for conflict and stifled dialogue. A similar concept can be applied to international relationships. Conflict occurs when the involved parties allow their fundamental differences to take center stage (Pain, 2014).

            Thus, the war on terror can be analyzed through these feminist perspectives. Because of the existing similarities between domestic and international terrorism, strategies to address both also resemble. International terrorism, like domestic violence, aims to establish the hierarchical relationships through fear. For this reason, the first step is to address this fear, whether from the perspective of the key decision makers in the administration or from the public’s point of view. Both domestic and international terrorism also need to take into consideration the existing social hierarchies, which also contribute to terrorism. For instance, patriarchy places men at a higher social, political, and economic position than women. These positions make it easier for men to exert violence towards women without adequate repercussions. Furthermore, these social hierarchies lead to those in the higher positions to dehumanize those below. The social hierarchies are enforced through ethnocentrism, racism, class privilege, ableism, and heterosexism, among other systems (Pain, 2014). Subsequently, the process of exerting violence towards the oppressed group becomes justified. The war on terror can then be addressed through addressing these unfair systems on a domestic and subsequently international level.

            The perspective of first responders who deal with immediate effects of terrorism is essential in understanding the devastating consequences it causes. First responders are able to witness firsthand the loss of lives, injuries, and damage to property caused. The physical and emotional effects of terrorism are also examined from the perspective of first responders. In particular, firefighters are placed in a vulnerable position because of the trauma of witnessing terror first hand. Their operations are essential in ensuring that loss of lives, injuries, and damages caused by terrorism is minimal. In addition to this, firefighters also face the physical risks of injury or death, substantial physical and psychological consequences due to their proximity to violence and terror (Schorr & Boudreaux, 2008).

First responders maintain that violence of this scale is filled with a high level of uncertainty. In terrorist attacks, first responders consider several factors. The main priorities are to maintain the safety and well-being of those within the vicinity. Furthermore, they are required to contain any possible damage. Schorr and Boudreaux (2008) claim that firefighters are vulnerable to post-traumatic stress as well as other psychological effects caused by major trauma. The trauma that is caused by damage from human intent is also reported to be more prevalent than that caused by natural disasters.

            The study draws a connection between an increased level of job satisfaction and the access to health services firefighters gain in the event of psychological trauma. Emotional support is also seen as an instrumental tool for first responders who experience posttraumatic stress, to regain control of their lives and become more efficient in future operations. As a result, the war on terror needs to be examined through the perspectives of first responders as a means to develop new strategies that minimize harmful effects following the aftermath of attacks (Schorr & Boudreaux, 2008).

            Various shortcomings of the government are addressed concerning their capacity and efficiency in protecting the public from terrorist threats. Certain sections of the public have expressed a level of discontentment concerning the failures of the government. These perspectives are also told from the point of view of national security expert Stephen Flynn. He offers insight into the political and administrative landscape that determines how security operations are carried out. According to Flynn, there exist shortcomings in the plans for homeland security (2004). Before the 9/11 attacks, the government generally disregarded terrorist threats. Intelligence played a much smaller in the years before 2001 as compared to afterward. Furthermore, the author also reveals various situations in which terrorist attacks can wreak devastating havoc in the future should these shortcomings not be addressed.

            Flynn also reveals that in the wake of increased terrorist attacks, the American public has become more alert and fearful. In some surveys, the public has expressed a decline in confidence in the government to protect them against threats. This phenomenon is likely to present significant political, social, and economic consequences for the American public (Stephenson, 2004). In the light of these shortcomings, the author also provides a range of solutions that fit inside a solid framework. This is designed to increase the overall effectiveness of the government. It involves developing platforms in which the public can participate, provide intelligence, and coordinate with law enforcement entities, which ultimately make it hard for terrorists to operate and attack.

            Zulaika (2009) also presents a different perspective of the shortcomings of dealing with the war on terrorism. According to the author, a realistic approach is often taken by senior administrators of homeland security through stating “not if, but when” in regards to the possibility of attacks taking place. However, the author argues that this approach serves as a “self-fulfilling prophecy’ which is subsequently retrogressive to their security objectives. The author further maintains, “By distorting reality to fit their own worldview, the architects of the War on Terror prompt the behavior they seek to prevent” (Zulaika, 2009). A new form of logic seeks to revolutionize the attitudes that key decision makers possess towards tackling terrorism in America. This form of logic is based on more optimism as well as objectivity towards the War on Terror. Counterterrorism is seen as possessing several blind spots, which terrorist organizations could exploit. For this reason, the author proposes the development of new approaches that do not involve counter-terrorism strategies.

            In the resources provided, authors have presented a wide range of insights and perspectives on the war on terror in America. A central theme that has been emphasized is the importance of intelligence in the War on Terror. Improvement of fundamental counter terrorism structures as well as advancement of intelligence gathering technologies has been highly valued since the 9/11 attacks. The concepts of violence have been explored through feminist geographical approaches. Attitudes towards terrorism are seen as instrumental in helping to tackle or incite further attacks. While some demographics are satisfied with strategies of the war on terror, others have expressed lack of confidence because of the fundamental difference in perspectives of how it should be approached. The war on terror has been additionally explored through the eyes of the first responders who require a significant level of emotional support to continue carrying out their duties effectively. The horrific events of 9/11 have shaped the perspectives of the American public. The general conclusion is that more resources and dedication needs to be directed towards enhancing national security.

References

Costel, M., & Tiberiu, T. (2015). The importance and the role of intelligence in security strategies. Knowledge Horizons, 7(2), 134-138. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/docview/1686097054?pq-origsite=summon&accountid=8289

Gallagher, M. J. (2014). Intelligence and national security strategy”. Reexamining project solarium, intelligence, and national security. Intelligence and National Security, 30(4), 461-485. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02684527.2014.885203

Jones, J. L. (2002). Operational risk management. Retrieved from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmc/orm.pdf

Kamien, D. G. (2012). Homeland Security Handbook. Strategic Guidance for Coordinated Approach to Effective Security and Emergency Management (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Professionals.

Pain, R. (2014). Everyday terrorism: Connecting domestic violence and global terrorism. Progress in Human Geography, 38(4), 55-61. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132513512231

Schorr, J. K., & Boudreaux, A. S. (2008). Responding to terrorism in the USA: Firefighters Share experiences in their own words. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 10(1-2), 577-589. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1300/J146v10n01_15

Stephenson, J. (2004). America the Vulnerable: How our government is failing to protect us from terrorism. Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, 46(2), 188-190. Retrieved, from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00396338.2004.968

Zulaika, J. (2009). Terrorism: The self-fulfilling prophecy. Retrieved from http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/T/bo8103579.html