Cold War on Terrorism
The United States foreign policy on international safety and the safety of the Americans keeps changing in response to the changing terrorism threats. Over the decades, discussions of the significance of war and terror have formed a critical component of both academic and political discourse (Riedman, & Warden, 2017). Beginning in the Cold War Era, American policy on war and terrorism has focused on the possibility of external attacks from enemy countries that have access and capacity to launch nuclear weapons. Many Americans view the external threats on the basis of the foreign policy that was created during the Cold War. The development of the public opinions was based on both realistic and political considerations of the time (Mamdani, 2005).Understanding the political realities that shape the public perceptions on international terrorism is essential in explaining how certain groups and countries came to the focus in world politics and the impact of the Cold War on the organization and management of the US Military. To understand the relationship of the cold war and terrorism requires the realization that the latter is founded on three concepts; religion, culture and politics. The current paper focuses on how the division of politics led to the establishment terror groups during the Cold War. Other concerns that will be handled are the illegal and unethical financing of the wars that took place during the era resulting in great acrimony among countries. Indeed, it is argued that the Cold War significantly shaped the manner in which countries are governed and how the military is viewed in many nations.
The purpose of terrorism is to create and spread fear (Hoffman, 2006; Riedman, & Warden, 2017). When these terror groups choose a target, they look at one that has a symbolic value and will generate the most media reaction and coverage. These groups are not as armed as the military; they do not target locations with a high military presence. Instead, they aim for less protected areas that will generate a significant number of causalities while creating fear at the same time (Price, 2011). The above-named locations attract fewer security measures and are frequently visited by the public which makes them a perfect target for terrorist attacks. The primary method of protecting high-risk areas is by increasing security presence and improving intelligence gathering and surveillance to ensure the planned attacks are thwarted before they happen (Hoffman, 2006).
Before discussing the Cold War, it is essential to first describe terrorism and the tactics that terrorists use. Unlike the popular belief about the impulsive and crazed nature of terrorist attacks the reality points to meticulous planning with the aim of sending messages (Hoffman, 2006). Individual terrorist organizations have specific aims and aspirations and in attacking, they intend to send the message to the perceived enemies. One critical feature of terrorism is its constant evolution in response to the technological advancements. The terrorists are utilizing sophisticated methods beginning with the declaration of the Third World War in 1975 by Carlos with a similar declaration being made by French soldier who had escaped from a suicide attack in Beirut (Jenkins, 1986). However, international terrorism cannot be pointed to any specific event and it is difficult to establish the exact point at which it began. Despite the lack of clarity of the origins of this was, the reality is that humanity is under a serious threat as the peace and freedoms enjoyed by nations is disrupted by the terrorist attacks (Wilkinson, 2016). Notably, this new form of war, unlike the wars of the past is not characterized by the tactics such as fighter aircrafts and scrambles (Nasser-Eddine, Garnham, Agostino, & Caluya, 2011). On the contrary, terrorism involves numerous wars that are started by enemies that are not readily defined acting on beliefs that are beyond state to state differences.
Jenkins (1986) had predicted that the United States was not appropriately prepared to deal with the impacts of terrorism. The bombing of the United States World Trade Centre is testament of the levels of unpreparedness of the country to deal with terrorism. Built for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the WTC consisted of nine buildings connected by an underground mall. On February 26, 1993 attack on WTC exposed the vulnerabilities in building and the level of preparedness of the city. A number of challenges were experienced during that attack and as a result, the Ports Authority used 100 million USD to enhance the physical, structural and technological enhancements to the WTC (9/11 Commission, 2004). The subsequent September 11, attack exposed the countries’ lack of preparedness further. Indeed, terror activities against the United States and her citizens have been experienced with the destruction of American embassies in various countries such as the 1998 bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, American jets are being blown with numerous citizens kidnapped. Jenkins (1986) also highlights the death of 242 US Marines that were killed with a track that was loaded with explosives in their barracks.
Various authors have sought to understand the justifications for terrorist activities (Walzer 2004; Wilkinson, 2016). Despite the commitment from governments that they will not bow to terrorist demands, the incidences of terrorist attacks have been on the rise. The advancement of media technologies for sharing information has also resulted in many extremist groups spreading fear and causing fear and confusion. Walzer (2004) defines terrorism as “the deliberate killing of innocent people, at random, to propagate fear in an entire population and force the hand of its political leaders.” Walzer (2004) asserts that extremism is a choice, and those that choose it could have made a different option. While terrorism could be associated with oppression, scholars argue that it is not eh best way of solving the challenges. The scholars also argue that people that give terrorism an excuse hold a pretense view that it is the government, which inaccurately labels the struggles of liberation and revolution as acts of violence to discredit the oppressed and legitimize the often-excessive reaction of the state to such activity. This means that any terrorist activities by the minority who believe are oppressed, is a logical response to the treatment they receive from the government (Wilkinson, 2016). However, in reality by reciprocating, the individuals or group of oppressed does only merit a progression of bloodshed. The most notable critique of this excuse is Terrorism whether committed by the state or oppressed group leads to depreciation of development and humanity and generates political superiority of one group over another.
The second justification that Walzer (2004) argues to be an excuse is that terrorism is used as a last resort for hopeless persons who have no other option. This argument is widely used by terrorists and is used to gain sympathy from the public. However, the reality is that terrorists use this means as a first resort as in the case of IRA’s 1971 attacks. There are several alternatives available for conflict resolutions, especially in liberal democracies as can be evidenced by civil rights societies shown by Dr. Martin Luther King. Another Justification for Terrorism is a conclusion that no other strategy can work because of the weakness of the oppressed and prevailing power of the state. This justification seems to legitimize extremism as a means of compensating for the perceived disadvantage of the oppressed community. However, since there is little, if any, support that the terrorists receive from the public, it shows how the majority disagree with the cause of terrorism in question (Wilkinson, 2016). Therefore, extremists only represent the interest of a minority and hence this justification should be ignored. The last excuse noted by Walzer (2004) is that terrorism works, and it frees the oppressed irrespective of whether their involvement is direct or not. This excuse cannot hold since there is not much historical evidence that supports the effectiveness of any one terrorist activity. As much as an act of terrorism can raise the profile of a local struggle, it is wrong to accept the justifications offered for these destructive activities.
As a means of countering terrorism, the US government has increased security to the critical infrastructures that are prone to attacks. Many such aspects as smuggling of weapons of mass destruction on planes have significantly reduced as has the levels of kidnapping and hijackings that were popular in the 1970s. Despite the achievements, the volume of terror attacks has been on the rise since 1980s with the trend being a non-selective violence on a large scale as the figure below shows.
Ask your questions to our best writers for quality and timely essay answers. Learn smartly and seek help from our solution library that grooms your concepts with over 150 courses.
From essays to dissertations, we have experts for all your writing needs!
