Perhaps the most controversial issue surrounding terrorism is how governments should respond to it. This controversy stems from the dual nature of terrorism—it has both criminal and military aspects. In countering terrorism, governments must deal with criminals—often murderers—who may have the organization, sophistication, and capacity for violence of a military force. Effective counterterrorism, therefore, often consists of both traditional law enforcement techniques and military operations. Overall, military force levels in the United States should be threat-driven, that is, determined by the size and nature of the perceived threats to national security. I will discuss when military force should be used in support of the war on terrorism.
The war on terrorism is a noble cause to end terrorism. However, the efforts have led to more war. An example of the law enforcement approach was the U.S. government’s response to the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City on February 26, 1993, an attack that killed 6 people and injured more than 1,000 others. While it appears the public even believes non-military means will generally be more effective than military efforts in preventing future terror attacks, an overwhelming majority nonetheless feels that a failure to take any military action in response to the attacks will increase the chances of terrorist attacks in the future. One of the consequences is the escalation of violence. In 2011, the World Trade Centers were bombed in response to the United States’ involvement in foreign affairs. In response, Osama bin Laden was tracked and killed, the war efforts in Iraq escalated, and Americans were terrorized by the acts of war and terror. Clearly, war has its negative consequences that often outweigh the benefits, and the costs of human lives are never worth the cause of the war.
Decisive means and results are always to be preferred, even if they are not always possible. We should always be skeptical when so-called experts suggest that all a particular crisis calls for is a little surgical bombing or a limited attack. When the "surgery" is over and the desired result is not obtained, a new set of experts then comes forward with talk of just a little escalation--more bombs, more men and women, more force. History has not been kind to this approach to war-making. In fact this approach has been tragic -- both for the men and women who are called upon to implement it and for the nation. This