How should the United States prosecute its war against global terrorism over the next several years? Should the United States become more aggressive in taking preemptive action in accordance with...

How should the United States prosecute its war against global terrorism over the next several years?

Should the United States become more aggressive in taking preemptive action in accordance with the Bush Doctrine? Or should the United States be more diplomatic in its engagement with foreign nations and take a soft power approach?

Asked on by marci23

3 Answers | Add Yours

kapokkid's profile pic

kapokkid | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Educator Emeritus

Posted on

I have an idea for things we shouldn't be doing.  How about spending billions and billions of dollars for "airport security" that does nothing but inconvenience millions of people, waste taxpayer money, and provide an illusion of security.  We couldn't even stop a guy with his underpants full of incendiary bomb who'd been outed by his own father as a potential risk.  But lets make sure everyone takes off their shoes thanks to Richard Reid...

We should probably start acting instead of reacting almost all of the time.  We could use resources to develop local contacts in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan and Yemen and have good intel rather than trying to build thousands of super sophisticated machines to sniff everyone's bags or persons for explosive residue, etc.  Since checking everyone has never been shown to produce any real effect on the number of weapons that get on planes, lets at least scrap that whole bunch of nonsense and use that money effectively somewhere else.

bullgatortail's profile pic

bullgatortail | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

A true question for the future ages. I don't pretend to have the answer to this question. I believe the Bush Administration was wrong when they invaded Iraq for a second time, since there was little evidence that the nation was involved with the World Trade Center attack nor was there ever evidence that Iraq maintained weapons of mass destruction. I believe the invasion of Afghanistan was a much more needed intervention, though I am not certain that we will ever succeed in our objective of eliminating the terror havens that are harbored there.

I don't believe the government will ever allow an out-and-out ban on visas and travel by "tourists" from some of the countries where terrorism is rampant, but I believe putting more severe restrictions on who enters this country is a step that should be taken.

krishna-agrawala's profile pic

krishna-agrawala | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted on

There are no easy answers to the questions of combating the global terrorism. I do not think I am in a position to prescribe a comprehensive approach for USA combat global terrorism. However from the perspective of an Indian, it does appear to me that USA is still not realizing the adverse impact of terrorist activities against countries like India. It appears to me that in is concern for maintaining some kind of balance or equality among nations in this region, USA is playing down the dangers arising out of terrorist activities being carried out in some of the countries with and without government support. It is true that such terrorist activities may not be currently directed as USA, but if allowed to develop and become more powerful, theses terrorist activities can target USA also as they have done in the past.

We’ve answered 318,957 questions. We can answer yours, too.

Ask a question