The Impact Of 9/11 In New Policies Against Terrorism
✳ Overview
The anniversary of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, is a perfect moment to reflect and take stock. Some of the world's leading counterterrorism and homeland security practitioners and experts examine. If the United States and its allies must reset the basic assumptions, policies, and practices put in place after 9/11 to combat today's and tomorrow's terrorism threats in the Atlantic Council's Future of Counterterrorism Project series. It should come as no surprise that much has to change for the future of counterterrorism twenty years after 9/11.
The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, killed 2,977 people and triggered a "Global War on Terrorism" against the perpetrators and more significant conflicts in South Asia, Europe, the United States, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia.
✳ War On The Perpetrators Of 9/11 Has Been A Success
In some ways, the war on the perpetrators of 9/11 has been a success: no terrorist strikes on the scale of 9/11 have occurred in the twenty years after that. The danger has not, however, been eliminated. Terrorist sources from two decades ago continue to threaten peace and security today. Domestic terrorism, which was last a menace in the 1970s, has resurfaced as a threat to American democracy.
✳ Scope:
This series will examine non-state actors' threats to carry out acts of violence (or their cyber equivalents) against civilian targets to further political aims, some of which are supported by hostile countries. This includes threats from al-Qaeda and ISIS, proxies backed by nation-states like Iran, and ideologies rooted in tumultuous periods of American history.
✳ Despite this diversity of knowledge, a few commonalities emerge
The US should not remain fixated on concepts and structures that, while they may have functioned well enough in the last two decades to avoid another mass casualty assault like 9/11, are no longer appropriate for future terrorist threats.
Over the last two decades, military might has dominated US counterterrorism operations. Still, the future of counterterrorism will necessitate a shift in leaders' focus and resources to civilian security and law enforcement. Domestic terrorism, in particular, has become a significant danger to American democracy, but it does not need a military response.
Future counterterrorism efforts must place an increased emphasis on prevention. Building international and domestic partnerships will be equally important.
Terrorists will keep coming up with new ways to surprise people. Terrorists will continue recruiting and planning attacks via the Internet and social media platforms. The counterterrorism sector must employ imagination and foresight to predict dangers and persuade policymakers.
To focus on closing doors before assaults. Counterterrorism professionals require access to senior officials. And their attention to convince them to make the necessary changes—including increasing resources—to prevent terrorists from carrying out plots that today sound like science fiction but have become terrifyingly real in the last two decades.
In the 1980s, identifying state sponsors of terrorism made sense, but the world has become more complicated. Countries like Iran use non-military measures to combat the US and its allies. The United States' strategy against state sponsors of terrorism has to be revamped. And updated to include non-military threats from various countries.
Since 2001, every US presidential administration has focused on domestic concerns or traditional national security challenges such as great-power competition. Counterterrorism was a priority for the first three governments of the twenty-first century.
The Biden administration should not consider counterterrorism and other national security issues mutually exclusive. Compared to the costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, today's investments in successful counterterrorism are minimal.
There is every reason to believe that terrorism can be reduced to a level where individual governments can handle threats without the need for large-scale, decades-long military efforts like those in Afghanistan and Iraq or the campaign to defeat ISIS if the US and its allies can make more effective use of civilian security, law enforcement, and prevention programs.
In collaboration with its partners, the Biden administration must create the end state for today's terrorist challenges, both foreign and domestic. And then correctly resource those efforts to assure their success.
Written By : Essay Help top writers.
Read More :
Recent Posts
See AllOverview Don’t be stressed as dissertation writing experts are here to assist you out and they are one probably the best solution to...
Overview The interaction between employees and employers inside an organization is referred to as organizational behaviour. Tight and...
Comments