How the American Public Perceives the War on Terror

Posted: March 26th, 2020

How the American Public Perceives the War on Terror

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, has widely varying views. The war on terror required a change in the operations, policies, and attitudes of fighting terrorism. Political discourse was centered on finding out ways to keep America safe, but also ensure that the fundamental laws, especially those associated with privacy and data security were upheld. Integrated approach sought to involve local and international entities in the process of intelligence sharing. The 9/11 attacks changed the views and attitudes of foreign and immigration policies that existed prior to the tragedy. 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 through perceptions of countries such as Iraq. Similarly, there exist significant differences between the literature and public conversations between pre 9/11 and post 9/11. However, a larger consensus achieved in the public was that more resources and dedication should be directed towards achieving and maintaining a sophisticated national security framework.

            According to Costel and Tiberiu (2015), intelligence has a significant role to play in the larger strategies aimed at maintaining 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. Intelligence gathering 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 to be ineffective, and this prompted an overhaul of the structure in order to develop new methods of dealing with terrorism. These strategies were seen as feasible and realistic changes that would enhance the capacity for security operations on a global scale.

            The authors also maintain that intelligence has gained significant importance since the 9/11 attacks. Extensive literature about its increased importance, nature, and difficulty in achieving it has been covered. More government resources have been directed towards developing intelligence systems and technologies aimed at gathering information that assists in strengthening the American defense structures. The need to gather intelligence for counter terrorism operations has also gained significant attention in the larger American public, which also recognizes its importance.

            Similarly, Gallagher (2015) proposes that the role of intelligence needs to take on a more central role in the process of developing national security strategies in America. The author provides the example of Project Solarium. This project was an approach of countering the Soviet expansion in the earlier years of the Cold War. It was developed by President Dwight Eisenhower, and characterized intelligence gathering as a means of containing Soviet influence. The main aim was to ensure that the senior staff and decision makers in Eisenhower’s cabinet reach a consensus, which he believed was crucial to developing a strong front.

For this reason, the president employed intelligence gathering as a key step that sparked more critical conversations on the foreign policy with regards to the Soviet Union. It involved gathering of teams that consisted of military, diplomatic, and political experts who would provide the much-needed information that would prompt effective decision making. Essentially, this intelligence provided a “common baseline of analysis” which sparked debate among the key decision makers (Gallagher, 2015). As such, the author maintains that intelligence, especially among the senior level administrative personnel, was a highly regarded tool.

            Jones (2002) provides some fundamentals of risk management from the perspective of a marine corps. The author characterizes risk as the potential loss and severity of an event that may occur due to a hazard. The hazard is often brought about by an enemy, adversary, or other undesirable situations (Jones, 2002). Leaders or decision makers are responsible for identifying any sources of threats. A systematic approach towards dealing with them involves assessing the potential advantages that the enemy may possess, their capabilities, vulnerabilities, and making consideration about the potential courses of action.

            The perception of a leader is therefore highly critical towards dealing with potential threats from adversaries. The public perception towards operations that commanders carry out is also highly important to them. For the commanders, a key advantage that leads to success is the support of the public. This includes the positive perceptions towards their vision of maintaining 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 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 collecting information as well as combat operations.

Among other factors such as effects of casualties, impact on civilians, and loss of equipment, leaders need to make considerations on the level of public reactions with regards to the results obtained (Jones, 2002). In the light of this, it is important to acknowledge that the war on terror is a move aimed at protecting the interests of the public. As such, the government needs to recognize the importance of an engaged, participating, and informed community. It also stands to benefit from the contributions made to the public in form of reactions and suggestions on the way forward.

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, audience is able to develop a deeper insight into the intricacies of security issues and challenges in America and the larger world.

The public perception, and particularly those in these fields of expertise, is centered on the benefits and values of the practice of information sharing, whether through political or social discourse. According to Kamien (2012), critical actions have been undertaken in the post 9/11 period and this has been made possible through the process of sharing experiences as a means of developing collaborative anti-terrorism efforts. In the book, Brian Jenkins provides 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. Senators Talent and Graham also offer insights into the need for effective response systems in the event that these types of attacks take place. In order to avoid catastrophic eventualities, it is important for them to ensure that these frameworks for response are in place and can be utilized at any time.

             According to Kamien, the real danger exists in underestimating the capabilities and motivations of terrorist organizations (2012). Over time, terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda had grown to become highly interconnected on a global scale. This presented new threats to the United States and its international allies. Furthermore, concentration on one group and disregarding others may also lead to detrimental results. The author notes the importance of developing an all-encompassing framework of security, which takes into consideration all forms of adversaries, whether local or international.

            In the book, the author has provided the perspectives of international relations experts, who reveal some of the political and social challenges that the war on terror has experienced since its conception. Terrorist organizations such as the Al Qaeda in the countries of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) have become developed in terms of their co-ordination and information sharing across their regional networks and cells. Due to this, they have become ever more “dangerous, resilient, and difficult to understand” (Kamien, 2012, pg 2). It is because of this that 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 therefore a key challenge in winning the war on terror. Furthermore, the more powerful organization will also possess the tool of threat, which gains them influence over the 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 to dealing with terrorism on a large scale. According to him, understanding the styles of engagement for these organizations is highly important to the development of tactics of countering their efforts (Kamien, 2012). In order to perform effectively, terrorist organizations depend on the “heterogeneity of roles” performed. Therefore, efforts to counter terrorism must also be directed towards understanding these roles. These roles are mostly centered on both legal and illegal activities, internal and external influences, and fluctuating responsibilities and status of members therein (Kamien, 2012).

            The roles of terrorism are also addressed through their political intentions. Like 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). 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. 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 carried out against a victimized group affects their physical as well as mental well-being.  

            Furthermore, the feminist geographers have termed domestic violence as a form of “everyday terrorism” even though they differ in some areas. However, the same concept of terrorism and inflicting physical and psychological violence 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 for 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 will also resemble. International terrorism, like domestic violence, aims to establish the hierarchical relationships through fear. Therefore, the first step is to address this fear, whether from the key decision makers in the administration, or from the public. Both domestic and international terrorism also need to take into consideration the existing social hierarchies, which also largely contribute to terrorism. For instance, patriarchy places men at a higher social, political, and economic position than women in general. 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. These 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 therefore be addressed through addressing these unfair systems on a domestic and subsequently international level.

            The physical and emotional effects on terrorism are also examined from the perspective of first responders. In particular, fire fighters 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 minimized. In addition to this, fire fighters also face the physical risks of injury or death because of their proximity to violence and terror. They are therefore prone to significant physical as well as psychological effects. First responders maintain that violence of this scale is filled with a high level of uncertainty. In the event of 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. Through these operations, Schorr and Boudreaux (2008) maintain that firefighters are vulnerable to post traumatic stress as well as other psychological effects caused by significant 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 that fire fighters gain in the event of psychological trauma. Emotional support is also seen as an instrumental tool for first responders who experience posttraumatic stress. Through this, they are able to regain control of their lives and become more efficient in the event of future response operations. As such, 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 with regards to 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 afterwards. 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 in the event of 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 co-ordinate 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 that, “by distorting reality to fit their own worldview, the architects of the War on Terror prompt the behavior they seek to prevent” (Zulaika, 2009). This is presented as a new form of logic that seeks to revolutionize the attitudes that key decision makers possess towards tackling terrorism in America. Counter terrorism in the war on terror is seen as possessing several blind spots through which terrorist organizations are able to exploit. Because of this, 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. 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 significant lack of confidence because of the fundamental difference in perspectives of how it should be approached. The war on terror has also been explored through the eyes of the first responders, who are seen to require significant level of emotional support in order to continue carrying out their duties effectively. Many of the perspectives of the war on terror by the American public have been shaped by the horrific events of 9/11. Above all, a consensus reached 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

Hicks, M. H., Dardagan, H., Peter, B., Spagat, M., & Sloboda, J. (2011). Casualties in civilians and coalition soldiers from suicide bombings in Iraq, 2003–10: A descriptive study. The Lancet, 378(9794), 906-914. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736 (11)61023-4

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 City, USA: 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