Can State Sponsored Terrorism Ever Be Eradicated Without War

Can state-sponsored terrorism ever be eradicated or eliminated entirely without a war? For instance, is the United States’ war with Iraq the best way to quell the perceived terrorist threat? Were there any other solutions to this perceived terrorist threat? How does your answer fit into the Hezbollah Umbrella (see figure 8.7, p. 133, White, 2006)? Note the fit, or lack of it, in your closing statements for this week’s assignment.

As much as I would like to follow the notion that “nothing is impossible,” I am determined to say that state-sponsored terrorism will not be eradicated or eliminated entirely even with war as the main catalyst.  Terrorism has become a tremendous issue to deal with.  It is imperative to understand, that even if a war was waged on a country that supports terrorism, the efforts will at best solve little.  Firstly, terrorist groups like al Qaeda and Hezbollah are transnational factions with supporting infrastructures in a lot of countries worldwide, including United States (White, 2006, p. 139).  Even with efforts to overthrow leaders of terrorist groups (in order to cause chaos and disorganization) we must consider that al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden has been illusive; costing the U.S. and other nations billions of dollars.  If U.S. and other supportive nations would wage war against a terrorist harboring country it would translate into loss of a lot of money and lives.  I feel that to some extent this needs to be done, but an “intelligent” war will solve much more, especially now, with terrorists that are smarter and much more cunning than they have ever been in the past.

United States and Iraq…

Based on the many articles/documents I’ve read and the media coverage I’ve seen I can conclude that United States’ way of handling the perceived terrorist threat was defunct from the start.  U.S. entered Iraq with little supporting evidence of terrorist threats in the country ran by Saddam Hussein.  Although Hussein’s regime ended, the country and its people are suffering tremendously while “democracy” is being introduced.  Terrorist organizations and rebels are running certain parts of the country with blatant disregard for human life.  It becomes more evident that George Bush wanted to end Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship and garner the perceived reward, the Iraqi oil.  However, things didn’t work out as planned, because there was no set plan, nor was there a contingency plan for the resulting hasty decision.

Perhaps there were other methods to address the perceived terrorist threat in Iraq.  Time and patience would have been a good start.  Also, we must consider that the intelligence gathered didn’t sufficiently present the terrorist threat as a certain risk.  Counterterrorism efforts, not war, should’ve been used by the government first, but only after the recent changes.  According to the 9-11 Commission’s Analysis of  counter terrorism, the many agencies and their respective departments handling terrorist threats and counter terrorism campaigns were inadequately prepared to handle certain aspects of their efforts.  This was mainly due to the misinterpretation of laws which hindered communication efforts between the diverse agencies (White, 2006, p. 113).  I feel that more needed to be done before U.S. entered Iraq.  The perceived terrorist threat should have been a definite terrorist threat.

The Hezbollah umbrella seems to be a genius interpretation of how terrorism can shift into legitimate guerrilla warfare in the eyes of many; a political cause with “dental benefits.”  Hezbollah, deemed as one of the most charismatic terrorist groups has put the infamous al Qaeda in the second place.  Hezbollah has terrorism ties throughout the world and their international efforts have been very successful (White, 2006, p. 136).  Their strategy focuses on having different mission statements for different causes which they bring forth, making their intentions that much more acceptable.  This terrorist organization has its own security forces (guerrillas/terrorists), political factions, social services (provided to followers), and financing (White, 2006, p. 137).  Their terrorist campaigns are sponsored by Iran, according to White (2006).  It seems U.S. was thinking about waging war with Iran (at least once or twice) before.  Why not now?  Perhaps, this is because we (the U.S.) are not ready to start what we can’t finish.

Resource:

White, J.R. (2006). Terrorism and Homeland Security. (5^th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth.

You might also like:

• Current Level of Terrorist Threat to the United States
• Terrorism: Police Forces and Counter Terrorist Measures
• Terrorism: Ted Robert Gurr, Size of Terrorist Groups
• Terrorism: International Consensus on Definition of Terrorism
• Terrorism: No Common Definition Offered for the Term Terrorism
• Modern Terrorists More Violent Than Terrorists in the Past?
• Terrorism: Schmid and the Definitional Dilemma Solution