International terrorism is a global threat to the security and sovereignty of states. Terrorism exists for many complex reasons ranging from religion, economics, race, sovereignty, foreign policy, war, civil war, territorial advancement and ideology. Terrorism does not live in a vacuum but is interlinked between some of these factors.
The central question is how can terrorism be combated in the 21 century? This question on combating terrorism will be taken from a Western liberal democratic state sovereignty perspective. The focus will be on a state level response of major players in the international community. The Western liberal democracies that will be elaborated on include United States of America (USA), Israel, and Canada. The major alliances discussed will include North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), United Nations (UN) and Operation Infinite Justice (OIJ). Combating international terrorism can be fought and won. The costs of victory on the War on Terrorism will be exceptionally high. Strategies to be discussed include military, economic, political, legal, ideological, alliances and institutional changes will be required to succeed in the War on Terrorism. Relentless systematic policies must be institutionalized and carried forward beyond the current administration of these states. Many critics argue that this type of strategy has the best chance of success in combating international terrorism. However other critiques argue that terrorism is the last resort of destitute states and political movements. Diplomacy, brokerage deals, peace settlements and the respect of sovereignty to solve internal matters of terrorism are the best solutions. Currently the complexity of global terrorism the strategy to employ is offense over defense. Let us evaluate the arguments for and against the new war on terrorism in the 21-century.
When a sovereign Western liberal democratic state is attacked by a terrorist organization either domestically or internationally the most common response is a military option. The closest example of a Western liberal democratic response to terrorism is the Canadians response to the FLQ terrorists. In “1970 the FLQ kidnap James Cross & Pierre Laporte in October; Laporte is murdered. The Trudeau government applies the War Measures Act limiting civil rights.” (1). For a peaceful, tolerant and loving democratic sovereign state like Canada the state responded with overwhelming military force. The declaration of war had occurred and the government initiated the War Measures act to give the military and police sweeping power to root out the terrorist threat. The FLQ lost in the end and order was restored in Canada. The possible rationale was to slay the monster of terrorism when it was small before it got out of control. This example of Canada illustrates the successful use of force in combating terrorism.
USA is the only superpower in the world now and has hegemony with respect to military and economic domination. On September 11, 2001 a terrorist organization challenged the supremacy of the USA. USA the leading Western liberal democratic state has responded with deadly military force. September 11, 2001 the USA declared war against the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Centers and Pentagon. The enemy was quickly defined as Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network and a military response were initiated. The war began “On October 7, Bush's words became a reality as the United States and Great Britain began strikes against military bases and suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.”(2). The unification politically and domestically behind the war is critical to its success. If the threat is great enough a state will do almost anything to achieve military success. The USA has employed Air, Sea and Land attacks in Afghanistan. The use of Special Forces and ground forces will allow the USA to hunt and destroy the Taliban more efficiently. The question is can a military option work? The USA & British & Northern Alliance has created heavy losses for the Taliban. The military option can work if enough resources, technology and willingness to defeat your enemy. Equally important in any war is the domestic support of the general population. The media, war rhetoric, patriotism, and even nationalism are good techniques used to maintain the cohesion of the general populace. USA has these variables in concert but in warfare nothing is for certain. Sovereignty, national security and warfare are of paramount importance regarding combating global terrorism.
Lets us evaluate an example Israelis has a state policy regarding terrorists. “Terrorism is recognized worldwide as a strategic and global threat, with nations around the world joining together in the war against terror. The IDF has accepted the fact that one of its main tasks for the future is fighting insurgency and terrorism. Israel today is faced with terrorism by Islamic fundamentalist groups - Hizbullah in southern Lebanon and Hamas in the territories” (3). Israel at a state level has taken extremely harsh military stance of targeting and terminating terrorists. This approach may seem extreme but we can’t fully appreciate the level of terrorism that is almost a monthly occurrence in this liberal democratic state. Hamas is one of the primary terrorist organizations in Palestine. Israelis have been fighting so long that the cycle of violence seems to never end. This example illustrates that when liberal democratic states use peace initiatives against terrorist organizations or states that they will eventually be forced to surrender or go to war. When the “Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has declared an all-out "war on terror" in response to suicide bombings and shooting attacks by the Palestinian resistance that killed 26 people and wounded nearly 200 over the weekend” (4). The Israel & PLO example illustrates how complex and difficult terrorism is to solve once it reaches epidemic proportions. There are no simple solutions and either a cold peace or all out destruction of one side may be the only option left. Therefore from a Western liberal democratic perspective offense is better than defense as a strategy for the War on Terrorism.
Let us evaluate the strategy of alliances with respect to terrorism. The United Nations (UN) is the largest international body in the world at this time. What are the legal options the Security Council have regarding acts of aggression? “ The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.” (5). The UN generally fails to perform well due to the vote splitting in the Security Council and the inability of certain countries to commit to peacemaking versus peacemaking operations. However, if the UN has the full support of the Security Council the powers of the UN from a military standpoint are colossal. For example when Iraq invaded Kuwait the military response resulted in Dessert Storm. Desert Storm although not directly related to terrorism illustrates how powerful the UN entity can be when consensus against a state sovereign threat is acted upon with force. Swift military action over a sustained period of time resulted in the liberation of Kuwait. Victory was achieved for the parameters of Desert Storm. This example illustrates alliances such as UN can be employed to combat international threats and can be applied towards terrorism.
The UN has recently made sweeping initiatives with respect to terrorism. Lead by the USA initiatives the UN response has been unprecedented with the full support of the Security Council and many other nation states. Afghanistan is the new enemy and it has been isolated economically, politically and diplomatically. UN has made the following statement. “ Immediately after the 11 September attacks on the United States, the Security Council expressed its determination to combat, by all means, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts. The Council also reaffirmed the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. The States concerned have set their current military action in Afghanistan in that context. To defeat terrorism, we need a sustained effort and a broad strategy to unite all nations, and address all aspects of the scourge we face. The cause must be pursued by all the States of the world, working together and using many different means including political, legal, diplomatic and financial means.“(6). Analyzing the UN stance on terrorism the international community has many options at its disposal. The application of military, political, legal, diplomatic and financial means will be situational dependant against every perceived threat. In the case of Afghanistan the UN has been working on a political solution to get an interim government in place. The Security Council consents with the USA leading this operation to continue unrelenting attacks on Afghanistan. Air strikes, Special Forces, ground forces, and spies are some of the military numerous tools employed in the Afghanistan operation. The Taliban control has been significantly reduced but there is still heavy resistance. Therefore at this moment we can argue that the UN is an effective agent against the war on terrorism. The UN does have some major problems with maintaining coalitions in the Security Council. A member of the Security Council can veto the use of force. So there are limits to the power of the UN. However, many Western liberal democratic states have other contingency alliances in place.
Another example of military coalition is North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). NATO and its members have all agreed to defend the USA on its new war on terrorism. As NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson quotes “Article 5 states clearly that an armed attack against one … shall be considered an attack against them all. This is the strongest commitment sovereign nations can give to each other.” (7). NATO has displayed its impressive military prowess for example Yugoslavia and Kosovo. NATO bombed Yugoslavia into surrender without employing major ground forces. This example illustrates that smaller alliances can be successful in warfare. Some would argue that smaller coalitions are more cohesive and more flexible. NATO has not been used in combating global terrorism before, but considering the operational success record of NATO vis-à-vis military success, this alliance should prove valuable.
A third alliance is the USA
coalition against terrorism code named “Operation Infinite Justice”. Operation
infinite Justice function can be summarized “We will direct every resource at
our command - every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every
instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence and every necessary
weapon of war - to the disruption and defeat of the global terror network."(8).
This coalition is composed of close allies and unusual enemies of the past.
The final objective of these strategic alliances is the elimination of global
terrorism beginning with Afghanistan. The question is how cohesive are these
alliances and can this actually work in the long run? Given the current status
on the War on Terrorism with respect to Afghanistan one could argue that this
coalition will hold for now. However if the USA presses onto other targets like
Iraq, then the probability of these alliances holding is unclear. Terrorism
sometimes capitalizes on alliances “terrorism has a rather low strategic value,
but it has a catalytic potential, such as precipitating a war” (9). For example
protracted conflicts between the PLO and Israel can destabilize the region and
could precipitate a major war in the Middle East. Combating international
terrorism is reason enough to avoid another major war. Therefore military force
is an effective tool against terrorism. In addition why sovereign states enter
alliances is to protect their national security interests. Therefore alliances
are good strategy to help combat the threat of global terrorism. In the current
anarchical system force and strategic alliances are good combinations against
global terrorism.
How can nations restrict the financing of terrorist organizations? “UN General Assembly on December 9, 1999 aims to curb terrorist acts by restricting terrorists sources of funding as well as by defining new offenses under international law to close gaps currently used in counter terrorism legal cases”(10). Many steps have been taken legally and to restrict the flow of terrorist funds. The recent co-operation by financial institutions around the world is a small step forward in constricting and cutting access to money that finance terrorist operations. Restriction or elimination of illegal financial proceeds to fund terrorist organizations will be of vital importance against the War on Terrorism. Unfortunately many foreign banks operate outside the jurisdiction of the USA and its coalitions. Monitoring and seizures of assets linked to terrorist organizations will be very difficult war to wage. Manpower will be a major obstacle regarding the restriction of funds and due to the technology of capital to move freely between markets.
Economic sanctions can be applied to states that sponsor terrorism. For example sanctions imposed on Iraq after the Gulf War are still in effect. Major problems may occur with this strategy because sanctions usually hurt civilians the most. The military and terrorists usually are in a position to survive economic sanctions. Terrorists are transnational so imposing sanctions on a state can cripple an economy. Considering that many economies are interlinked globally this can create mass poverty. Poverty and economic sanctions can foster conditions that are conducive towards terrorist activities. For example the Palatines in the West Bank would illustrate poverty breeding terrorism.
Financial assistance to those states that are willing to help in the war against terrorism where conditions are conducive to the breeding of terrorism makes strategic sense. Money provides opportunities for people to find or make employment and lowers the odds of them engaging in terrorist activities. Not to suggest for a moment that only wealthy nations are free from terrorism. Terrorism just has an increased probability of coming into fruition in impoverished states. Economic sanctions thru co-coordinated domestic and international channels to restrict states that sponsor terrorism can work. Therefore strategic economic investment into states that have signed conventions or treaties that are favorable to the War on Terrorism should be considered as possible strategies. Sanctions against states should be analyzed case-by-case situation.
Another weapon against the War on Terrorism is increasing the intelligence capabilities of states. For example Western liberal democratic states can use technology to gather more intelligence about terrorists. Technology is a double-edged sword. For example “The same forces of technology that offer new economic and social opportunities also create new dangers. Terrorist methods are now more sophisticated “ (11). Terrorists have access to military hardware, advanced encryption and sophisticated computers. The free flow of technology from the collapse of the USSR is a problem. In addition terrorist groups sometime have members that are ex-military or former intelligence operatives. Fortunately Western liberal democratic states have huge economies of scale and safeguards to protect intelligence assets. Some assets the USA government employs are “spy satellites, communication technology, seismic sensors and ground sensors”(12). This technology has been used successfully in the past operations during the Cold War to find underground hidden Russian bases. The application to the War on Terrorism can be transposed to the lairs in Afghanistan. The USA has invested heavily in these areas of wiretap technology, code breakers, and military hardware. In addition the intelligence community of different countries can share information against a mutual enemy. Technology is one of the best offensive tools on the War on terrorism. Unfortunately technology does have its limitations. It seems Western liberal democracies have recently relied too much on technology and not enough on people.
Another weapon to be employed is human intelligence. This refers to using spies, paid informants, double agents and assassins in the global war against terrorism. Spies are not always effective considering they must infiltrate tightly cohesive cells or groups and act like terrorists to gain their trust. Spies have been used in all military operations. Sun Tzu one of the greatest Asian military philosophers once said “ So only a brilliant ruler or wise general who can use the highly intelligent for espionage is sure of great success. This is essential for military operations, and armies depend on this in their actions”(13). The job of spies is extremely difficult but critical to the success of any military operation. After the end of the Cold War and the great opportunities in the private sector less of the elite have not entered military specifically intelligence jobs.
One could argue that the intelligence community failed to predict Sept/11/01 WTC bombing. Agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) comment “Some of our most important targets – terrorists, weapons proliferators, and narco-traffickers, to name a few -- are hard to get at. We confront technologies that present unprecedented challenges to our ability to operate under cover. And we must combat a wider array of counter intelligence concerns.” (14). Even the most powerful Intelligence Agency in the world at this time does not have the resources needed to win the War on Terrorism. This implies that intelligence operations require additional resources. Therefore increased funding and training for intelligence agencies around the world would be a good tactic against the War on Terrorism. Sharing of intelligence with other states would also have many positive spillovers. Intelligence organizations could be able to coordinate more proactive or preventative operations on terrorism. Therefore technological and human intelligence is critical to the success on the War on Terrorism.
In wars military personal and sometimes it civilians die. In the new War on Terrorism liberal democratic states must be prepared to not only sacrifice military personal but also civilians. “What the free world has to realize is that, if it wants to remain free, it will, besides maintaining police vigilance, have to accept civilian casualties.”(15). Terrorists kill civilians to incite fear. Liberal democracies must use the fallen civilians as examples of heroes to inspire the populace to continue on moving forward. A classic example would be the fallen firefighters in New York City on September 11, 2001. We cannot have a police state protecting all civilians from danger. That would defeat the purpose of democracy and play into the hands of the terrorists. However, when loses occur we must create our own symbols of freedom and these fallen civilians can inspire patriotism and the preservation of Western liberal democratic values.
The political and legal methods to combat terrorism are extremely difficult. “Preparation of adequate counter terrorism grand policies and their implementation require extraordinary governmental and political arrangements and efforts “ (16). Just consider the example in Canada to get the Anti-Terrorism bill enacted. At what point do you sacrifice civil liberties for increased national security. Heated debates by lawyers, politicians and citizens have resulted due to the new Anti-Terrorism bill. The new powers that will be invoked will allow police, military, government and intelligence agencies sweeping new powers to combat terrorism. Can these powers be abused against its own citizens. It is possible and probable but there is the Sunset Clause and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to act check on this new bill. This legislation is not perfect but illustrates just how far liberal democratic states that are considered peaceful will go when there security is threatened.
Another major problem with combating terrorism is different political systems. Western liberal democracies “our openness and government by law rather than terror makes us more vulnerable”(17). Terrorist can spawn from democracies, dictatorships, communist regimes or religious extremist groups. Negotiating peacefully when two states have different political systems is tenuous at best. Terrorists operate with their own rules, which allow great flexibility to inflict terrorist acts. The rule of law and a constitution must be followed when conducting operations against terrorists. We must be careful not to falsely charge suspects without sufficient evidence on the crimes of terrorism. Using racial profiling or evaluation of a terrorist because they are of a certain race is not always an appropriate solution to this problem. The fine line between law enforcement and civil liberties will be walked once the new anti terrorism laws have been adopted by many Western liberal democracies. The new laws are created to protect democracy but ironically they may destroy her in the process.
Proactive measures to reduce the odds of terrorism must be taken. For example increased security on premises and installations that are possible terrorist targets. The most recent example is airport security. After September 11 2001 USA, Canada and other Western Liberal democracies have increased security in all areas. Unfortunately all these half measures are not enough. The Israel model for airport security should be adopted by Western liberal democracies. All Western liberal democracies should move to duplicate “Israel's national airliner "El Al" is known to have the strictest security measures in the world. All passengers have their background checked twice, luggage is physically checked twice, and people are also checked twice. Bomb-sniffing dogs are brought on the plane twice before takeoff. The plane is thoroughly searched twice. Because of this, passengers are required to check in at least three hours before a flight. El Al has highly trained security "profilers" who interrogate passengers before they board and, could detect would-be hijackers from their behavior and answers to questions “(18).
These standards seem almost impossible to achieve in airport security. Increased delays in time would be a major hassle for passengers. This strategy would cost a great deal of money and training to implement. However the evidence is that Israel has the best airport security in the world (18).
Another major problem is the remote possibility of terrorists using nuclear violence “sabotage of nuclear facilities or shipments, the detonation of homemade or stolen nuclear weapons or the use of devices for dispersal of stolen radioactive nuclear materials” (19). If terrorist or rouge states were able to acquire nuclear technology the implications are frightening for global security. Due to the radical nature of terrorist organizations they may be inclined to use such a weapon. Given the success of the airplane to be used as a delivery system it is not unreasonable to suggest that a nuclear weapon placed in an airplane would be an effective weapon of mass destruction (WMDs). How could access of nuclear technology be acquired in the 21 century? For example “Russia weak economy has compromised the safety of nuclear arsenal and created the distinct possibility of proliferation to rouge states or terrorists affecting American citizens” (20). This security gap could allow a rouge state to gain control of nuclear technology. At least states are easily identified and can be more easily targeted by the Western democratic military forces.
What is even more frightening is a terrorist group acquiring nuclear capabilities. The BBC report had Bin Laden as saying: "If America used chemical and nuclear weapons against us, then we may retort with chemical and nuclear weapons. We have the weapons as a deterrent." (21). The Al-Qaeda organization perhaps is lying about the acquisition of WMDs to incite more fear in the global community. However given the prior track record of Mr. Bin Laden’s terrorist’s acts we must seriously consider the remote possibility that his organization would have the willingness to use WMDs against Western liberal democratic states. Therefore restricting access to nuclear technology is a top priority and long term strategy of Western liberal democracies.
Terrorist organizations would have a higher probability to employ biological & chemical weapons versus nuclear weapons. Chemical or biological WMDs are simple to acquire and use versus the nuclear option. For example terrorists have used WMDs successfully in Tokyo. In the year “1995, when members of the Aum Shinrikyo cult placed open containers of sarin nerve gas on subway cars. The incident killed twelve, wounded sixty, and sent 5,500 victims to hospitals.” (22). The Tokyo example illustrates that terrorist organizations are capable and will use WMDs to attack Western liberal democracies. Tighter controls and decreased access to these WMDs are key steps to reducing its use by terrorists or rouge states.
First we must define terrorism “ standard definition is normatively neutral: the threat or use of violence for political purposes when such actions are intended to influence the attitudes or behaviors of a group wider than its immediate victims; its ramifications transcend national boundaries” (23). Terrorism definition is relative to whom you ask “one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter”(24). If you asked a member of Al-Quada versus a USA citizen you would get two very different answers. Properly identifying the enemy and cause would be a good tool for Western democratic states.
Part of the problem in solving global terrorism is the true differences between political ideology, religion, and race. The tribalism of humanity is still prevalent in today’s society. For example the Palestine’s and Israelis conflict is a vicious cycle because of their race, religion and political ideology. The history between these two competing people is so entrenched in violence that the odds of making true concessions towards a peaceful solution are remote. Peace accords have failed in the Middle East and the Israelis are the only Western democratically elected state between the two. Therefore one must argue “wars bring peace only after passing a culminating phase of violence” (25). This type of rational might precipitate a full out war with horrific casualties.
However in the long run peace can be made once an enemy is crushed beyond hope. For example during WWII the USA crushed the Japanese Imperialist system and after imprinted Western liberal democratic values. Now Japan after many years is one of the greatest defenders of democratic values. Afghanistan has oppressed their people for over 20 years of fighting. The UN is working on an interim government. However, only time will tell if this strategy is effective. Since each state is different every solution is situational dependant. The recent update on the War in Afghanistan is the following “Taliban have agreed to surrender of the last remaining stronghold, the southern city of Kandahar ”(26). This suggests the strategy of combating global terrorism can work. There is a long way to go with respect to a permanent change but this looks encouraging.
Institutional changes in Western democratic societies need to be implemented on the War on Terrorism. The creation or enhancement of organizations that reinforce long-term commitment to counter terrorism must be initiated. For example maintaining a set amount of funding regardless of economics or political changes in the interest of national security. Groups that fall into this category would be intelligence agencies, proactive counter terrorism strike forces and reactive federal emergency responses teams.
Each agency should co-ordinate activities and report to the government on a regular basis. Special agencies are needed for worst-case scenarios on counter terrorism.
The government should have an executive position for the consolidation military, intelligence and emergency response units that report directly to the leader of their specific country. For example George W. Bush selected Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge. The function of this position is “ The President's Executive Order establishes the Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council to develop and coordinate a comprehensive national strategy to strengthen protections against terrorist threats or attacks in the United States. The new team will coordinate federal, state, and local counter-terrorism efforts.” (27). Coordinating and consolidation of these entities into a single unified chain off command can streamline operations and make for more efficient allocation of resources during terrorist situations. Some argue that these agencies need their independence because the bureaucracy will increase their times to complete time sensitive tasks. Others argue you need a person in charge with direct authority to implement rapid decisions in crisis situations. Since this concept is rather new there is no hard evidence to prove that this system will work better than traditional models. However, given time one could extrapolate that this concept if proven successful can be translated to more Western democratic countries.
There must a proper balance between national security and economic and political objectives. A long-term flexible codified plan regarding counter terrorism would allow the next administration of any government to adopt its needs. This allows us to address the changing financial, political and economic situation of each Western liberal democracy while maintaining a set minimum standard of preparation for global terrorism.
Counter terrorism requires economic resources. If your country is in a recession then you cannot allocate the proper amounts to fund operations. Western democratic countries should pool some of their financial, intelligence, military resources to gain synergies in joint operations. Obviously countries like the USA would have to lead the way because of their super power status in addition to their economic and military hegemony. However each Western liberal democratic state can contribute to countering global terrorism. Cross training with Counter Terrorist groups between countries and co-coordinating in joint operations would increase the military options of Western democratic states. UK Special Forces & USA Special Forces working together in Afghanistan are a good example of synergies. Even middle powers like Canada have committed their elite forces Joint Task Force 2 (JT2) can contribute “Soldiers from the unit will join special forces troops from other countries involved in the U.S.-led war on terrorism.” (28). This analysis implies that countries are taking active steps to use these synergies and have had some progress in joint operations. This trend will probably continue because terrorism is transnational in nature and flexible forces are required in all battlefields.
Changes in foreign policy of Western liberal governments are critical to the success on the war on terrorism. A classic example is the prior to September 11 2001 the USA was focused solely on economic, domestic issues and leaving foreign policy on the backburner. The “US foreign policy will undergo a radical reordering in its war on terror with an internationalist perspective but will be subjugated to its new over arching objective to combat international terrorism. This war will not be a conventional war and against a clearly defined and visible enemy and its success will probably be difficult to measure.” (29). Many countries will not take as radical steps as the USA however when the only superpower in the world flexes its military and economic muscle nations will think twice. Striking a balance between the Muslim world, China and Russia will be a difficult task to achieve during the global War on Terrorism. The Muslim coalition will be more difficult to keep cohesive if further incursions result into countries that sponsor terrorism. Countries that sponsor terrorism include “Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria “(29). The American coalition will have to assess its options on a case-by-case scenario. As long as the USA can maintain the Security Council members of China and Russia on board this operation should progress further. Considering the task at hand I would recommend that USA and its allies focus on one enemy at a time.
Global terrorism has no simple solution and some argue that peace negations, diplomacy, broker deals and respect for sovereignty are they key to victory. Well considering that if a country cannot control its terrorist problem then one could argue that the state isn’t sovereign and representative of people. Afghanistan is an example and the OIJ response illustrates the counter argument. If the state is known to sponsor terrorism like Iraq then it cannot negotiate in good faith. Iraq is still patrolled and bombed regularly to keep in check after Desert Storm not trusted by Western liberal democracies. Containment works for only so long, sooner or later one must root out the problem. Broker deals don’t work either for example Israel concession land for peace with the Palestine’s. This strategy is ineffective because there is such instability and mistrust in these people that one side is waiting for the competitive advantage and they will overthrow their enemies.
Therefore after conclusive evidence one must argue the following that global terrorism can be fought and won. The costs of victory will be exceptionally high and the losses will be devastating. Firm military commitments by Western Liberal democracies include financing, operations, supplies, support, upgrading and maintenance of military forces. Increasing military intelligence by technology and human intelligence will be critical to successful War on Terrorism. Creating, sustaining and enhancing membership of strategic alliances to attack a common enemy will be critical. Changing in domestic, foreign policy and international laws against terrorism will provide the necessary tools to combat terrorism. We must be exceptionally careful not to restrict our civil liberties to the point where terrorist’s paranoia has created near police states in Western liberal democracies. There must be checks and restrictions on these powerful agencies to protect innocent people from the government. Strategic spending and laws that restrict or illegal financing of terrorist operations are important steps. This will be very difficult considering the global commerce and free flow of financial capital. Increasing security at key strategic sites like airports, nuclear facilities and WMDs need to be safeguarded. Western liberal democracies must be prepared for heavy military and civilian losses and make martyrs or heroes of these people as defenders of democracy. Most important we must either destroy the enemy totally or break her spirit so they will not seek revenge. We must attempt to create a lasting political solution once military victory has been achieved. A permanent political, institutional and ideological change to the enemy will take significant time. Complex variables of religion, economics, race, sovereignty, foreign policy, war, civil war, territorial advancement and ideology only add to the difficult solution of global terrorism. The best strategy is offense not defense for the War on Terrorism.
Internet
1) canadianheritagealliance.com “Canadian History Timeline” <http://www.canadianheritagealliance.com/canada/timeline/1901.html> (dec/1/01)
2) CNN.COM, “George W. Bush Profile A president finds his mission.”
<http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/people/shows/g.bush/profile.html>
(dec/1/01)
3) IDF.il: “New realities, new challenges fighting terrorism “
<http://www.idf.il/english/history/future3.stm> (dec/2/01)
4) Globe and mail.com (Dec/4/01) “Don’t topple Arafat, Peres Warns “ <http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/RTGAMArticleHTMLTemplate/C/20011204/wisrael?hub=homeBN&tf=tgam%252Frealtime%252Ffullstory.html&cf=tgam/realtime/configneutral&vg=BigAdVariableGenerator&slug=wisrael&date=20011204&archive=RTGAM&site=Front&ad_page_name=breakingnews> (dec/4/01)
5) UN.org “CHAPTER VII ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION” <http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm>
6) UN.org UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on military strikes in Afghanistan: “to defeat terrorism we need a sustained effort and broad strategy that unites all nations”, Oct/8/2001 <http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sgsm7985.doc.htm >(oct/13/01).
7) NATO Website “an attack on us all: NATO response to terrorism “ remarks NATO secretary General, Lord Robertson. (oct/11/01)
<http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2001/s011010b.htm >(oct/15/01)
8) Operation infinite justice “President George W. Bush, September 20, 2001” <http://www.operation-infinitejustice.org/> (dec/4/01)
12) Robert Windern, www.MSNBC.com “high tech hunt for terrorist lairs”
<http://www.msnbc.com/news/663580.asp?0dm=N22ET&cp1=1> (dec/4/01)
14) George J. Tenet DCI. CIA.gov
“Director of Central Intelligence Statements
on the Need to Strengthen the Directorate of Operations” (may/5/1998)
<http://www.cia.gov/terrorism/strenghtening_the_do.html> (dec/5/01)
18) June Chua and Amina Ali, CBC News Online “Airports and airline security” (sept/2001)
<http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/background/wtc_airlinesecurity.html> (dec/5/01)
20)www.house.gov Nuclear Threat reduction program “ common ground sought for nuclear security in the 21 century” (Jun/27/01)
<http://www.house.gov/spratt/news_archive/01_02/ntra_intro.pdf> (dec/5/01)
21) Hamid Mir www.bbc.co.uk “Bin Laden has nuclear weapons” (nov/10/01)
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1648000/1648572.stm>
(dec/5/01)
22) Medicine and Health/Rhode Island “The emergence of bioterrorism in as a public health concern in 21 century” (aug/2000)
<http://www.healthri.org/environment/biot/article.htm> (dec/5/01)
24) Hansad Refrences “defining terrorism” (feb/2001) http://www.blagged.freeserve.co.uk/ta2000/terror.htm#frf (dec/6/01)
26) CNN “Taliban give up last stronghold “ (dec/6/01) http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/06/ret.frontlines.facts/index.html (dec/6/01)
27) whitehouse.gov “what is the office of homelands security FAQ? ”
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/faq-homeland.html> (dec/6/01)
28) cbc.ca “elite Canadian commandos get marching orders” (dec/6/01) http://www.cbc.ca/cgibin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/12/05/jtf011205 (dec/6/01)
Books
9) Ariel Merari ed.. On Terrorism and Combating Terrorism (University of Publications of America Inc 1985) pg 119
10) Canadian Security Intelligence Service 2000 Public Report (Ministry of Supply Ottawa 2000) pg 6.
11) The Report of the Special Senate Committee on Security and Intelligence (Membership of the Committee Canada) (Jan/1999) “ Advances in Technology by Bill Clinton” pg 18.
13) Sun Tzu (translated Thomas Cleary) Art of War (Shambhala Dragon Editions Boston 1988) pg. 172
15) Louis Rene Beres. Terrorism and Global Security The nuclear threat (Westview Press/Boulder & London 1987) pg 27
16) Martha Crenshaw . ed.. Terrorism, Legitimacy and Power The Consequences of Political Violence (Wesleyan University Press Connecticut 1983) pg 85.
17) Robert A. Liston Terrorism (Thomas Nelson Inc Publishers New York) 1977 pg 146.
19) Paul Leventhanl & Yohnah Alexander Nuclear Terrorism Defining the Threat (International Defense Publishers Inc. Washignton) 1986 pg 1.
23) Anthony Quainton Rationalization of Terrorism: Moral and ethical considerations in defining a counter terrorist policy (University Publications of America Inc. 1982) pg 39
25) Edward N Luttwak, Give War a Chance (Foreign Affairs New York) 1999) volume 78 issue 4 pg 36.
29) Economic Intelligence Unit The new world disorder A briefing on the implications of the terrorist assault on the US (Paterson Dartford Oct/2001 UK) pg 19-20
