Monday, September 30, 2019

National Strategy for Combating Terrorism Essay

In the recent years, global terrorism has come into picture as a serious problem that threatens the world peace. The world community has expressed deep concern over the menace of terrorism in different parts of the world. Terrorism has struck countries like the United States, India and countries in Middle East and other parts of Asia. The terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 forced the United States to take a tough posture on this issue. The George Bush administration formulated a national strategy for combating terrorism, known as the Bush Doctrine. However, the war on Afghanistan and Iraq also revived the debate over the principles of the Just War Doctrine that exists for centuries. These two doctrines are contrasting in nature. A large number of people believe that the Bush Doctrine violates the basic principles of Just War. Just War Doctrine Just War always distinguishes between justifiable and unjustifiable use of force. The main objective of Just War is to restrain the use of arms and use them only when the peace and justice are in danger. A war always causes widespread destruction. It results in the killing of innocent civilians and creates economic and social turbulence. Although the war ends within a few days and or months, the survivors feel the impact for the years to come. People from different sections of the society always questioned the use of violence to preserve peace. Although killing is morally not justified, the inevitable war between states often leads to mass killing. Just War Doctrine aims at the protection of unarmed civilians and the need for necessary measures to minimize deaths. Just War is a theory practiced by the Catholic Church. The Catechism’s teachings on Just War forbid the intentional destruction of human life. It states that all the citizens and governments must work for peace. However, it allows a country to go to war for its self-defense if all peace efforts have failed. Just War theory believes in the principle of legitimate self-defense in the form of war. However, the threat must be real and grave and there should be no alternative to avoid war . It completely denounces initiating armed conflict without any provocation. The main principles of Just War are: ? Before going into war, it is necessary to explore all non-violent options to resolve the conflict. ? A legitimate authority must endorse the use of violent force by using discretionary power. ? A Just War fought against injustice with right intentions, is always justifiable. ? It prohibits States from using unnecessary use of force. Peace is the ultimate goal of a Just War. ? Just War allows use of force only against the armed combatants. It requires all States to take necessary steps to avoid civilian casualties . Just War makes a clear distinction between the use of arms against sovereign nations and the political compulsion of going to war. Nobody can justify the mass killings. However, the circumstances often warrant such an action. A Just War is defensive and cannot be aggressive under any circumstances. The main concern in every war is the loss of lives and property. Civilians always suffer heavily whenever there is a war. Just War Doctrine strongly emphasizes on protecting the lives of innocent civilians. National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (Bush Doctrine) In the wake of the terrorist attack on 9/11, President George Bush led the way to fight against global terrorism. The military doctrine of the United States had been a policy of deterrence for years. George Bush changed it into a policy of striking at the countries that threatens the interests of the United States. Under the Bush Doctrine, the United States adopted the idea of pre-emptive strikes on the suspected countries. The Bush Doctrine is a national strategy for combating terrorism. The new doctrine clearly states that the US would not allow any country to question its military supremacy. It also believes that the US has a bigger role to play in maintaining peace in the world by waging war against the rogue nations and terrorists. It denounced terrorism in strong words and calls for non-compromise on its national interests . The need of a comprehensive strategy to combat terrorism has become necessary keeping the strong capabilities of the terrorists. By using weapons of mass destruction, terrorists sent a clear signal that they could launch attacks on important installations at their will. The Bush Doctrine identified possible threats in three categories. These potential threats are global terrorist organizations, states that harbor such organizations and rogue states. It defined rogue states as states that oppress their own citizens and squander the national properties for the self-interest of the rulers. Countries that disregard international law and threaten their neighbors are also fall in the same category. In this context, the Bush Doctrine termed Iraq, North Korea and Iran as rogue states. However, the focus was on Iraq. The US policy stated in clear terms that it would not wait and watch until the rogue nations acquire or develop the weapons of mass destructions and use them to destroy the humankind . Preemptive strike is not a substitute for the non-military measures such as financial sanctions and diplomatic offensive to isolate a nation that practices dangerous propaganda. It is just an add-on policy to combat the new threat of invisible war launched by the terrorist groups. The main objective of the Bush Doctrine is not to tolerate the ghastly act of terrorism in any form. Conclusion In the past decades, people from some sections of the society developed new ways of terrorizing people to force the government and administration to meet their demands. Suicidal attacks in the United States, India, Israel and Iraq are the examples of the newly developed way of warfare. There is little option left with the states to tackle terrorism. A full-fledged war against terrorism and countries harboring terrorists has become inevitable. In this context, the Bush Doctrine seems to be an effective option. The leaderships in the world always explored ways for dialogue and discussion to tackle such problems. However, from the recent incidents, it has become clear that bringing the terrorists into negotiating table is almost impossible. They hardly showed any willingness to enter into dialogues. Their intransigent attitude forced the governments to take tough decision in curbing terrorism. Many people question the policy of the Bush Doctrine citing the principles of Just War Doctrine. However, in the recent years the world witnessed deadly acts of terrorism that killed thousands of people and caused loss of public and private property. In such a scenario, war against terrorism becomes completely justifiable. The only concern is about the loss of civilian lives. States going to war must address this concern properly and take necessary steps to avoid this. Bibliography Dolan, Chris J. In War We Trust: The Bush Doctrine and the Pursuit of Just War. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2005. Elshtain, Jean Bethke. Just War Against Terror: The Burden of American Power in a Violent World. New York: Basic Books, 2003. Daalder, Ivo H. , James M. Lindsey, & James B. Steinberg. The Bush National Security Strategy: An Evaluation. Washington: Brookings Institution, 2002.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.