If you order your research paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Defense Against Terrorism: For Better or Worse?. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Defense Against Terrorism: For Better or Worse? paper right on time.
Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Defense Against Terrorism: For Better or Worse?, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Defense Against Terrorism: For Better or Worse? paper at affordable prices !
“Terrorism, by definition, strikes at the innocent in order to draw attention to the sins of the invulnerable” (Johnson). The reason that this is such a hot topic has much to do with the events that led up to the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This seemingly unprovoked attack was not meant simply to kill innocent Americans, but was an all-out assault on American foreign policy. “Employing the strategy of the weak, they killed innocent bystanders, who then became enemies only because they had already become victims”(Johnson). American military intervention causes a lot of conflict between political parties, since the Republicans and the Democrats cannot agree on what America’s involvement should be in world affairs. Although there is not much that both sides agree upon, there is one thing that unites them, and that is the need to formulate a plan to protect American citizens from the “Threat of Terrorism.”
President Bush’s initiatives currently include the establishment of a Homeland Security Office, which will combine all of the U.S. government’s counter terrorism resources into one centralized, cohesive unit. This would replace the 45 departments and agencies of the federal government that presently have such programs in place, and must include costs into each of their individual budgets. It would be an attempt to streamline the efforts and make homeland security more cost-effective and efficient. This reform is long overdue, and removes much of the personal liability that presently exists when law enforcement agency personnel take actions against suspected terrorists. The dilemma now exists to rally the Senate and the House to act upon the proposal in an expeditious manner, so that American citizens can sleep at night confident that their leaders will protect them against the evildoers.
The real problem that Republican and Democratic leaders face is to find a way to compromise and to stop their politicking long enough to push President Bush’s plan through. Liberals believe that, “The Bush Administration has made several costly mistakes. By not limiting the response to the Al Qaeda threat, it has taken on a mission impossible that has no end in sight; even worse, the administration embraces war in settings where it has no convincing relationship either to U.S. or human security”(Falk). Conservatives contend that Bush is trying to establish the Homeland Security Office (HSO) in order to prepare America for the threat of future terrorist attacks; however, gaining the support of the Senate and the House of Representatives has proved to be a great challenge. The Republican outlook on this whole mess is that America should be proactive instead of reactive. Hopefully, the establishment of a cohesive group working together will ward off future terrorist attacks. Up to date intelligence information would certainly reduce the chance that incidents, similar to the attacks on September 11th, would take Americans by surprise.
Democrats want to take a wait-and-see approach, which could lead to America being faced with more attacks by Iraq and other terrorist-based nations. America deploys such overwhelming military force globally that strikes, such as the ones on September 11th, come as a shock to the American military, rendering it impotent. It is almost as though the democrats believe that America was partially to blame for the incidents that took place on September 11th. Republicans, on the other hand, seem to prefer more preventive measures. American citizens are already apprehensive and afraid to leave home, and a lack of commitment by our government officials, to resolve this problem, will only increase their fears. Unfortunately, if America goes to war with Iraq, other nations will be inflamed. These countries believe that Saddam Hussein can be “deterred and contained,” (Falk) because he is surrounded by superior forces that could destroy his country if provoked. At this time, anything America does should be well planned, but some action is better than none. Doing nothing says that lunatics can get away with the atrocities that took place on September 11th, and that Americans will not respond.
Order Custom Defense Against Terrorism: For Better or Worse? paper
The Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Defense Department, as well as all branches of the military are actively involved. Recently, Congress voted to allow the President to declare war if he feels it is necessary. The Homeland Security Office is in the works, but Congress must agree to the President’s proposal in order for it to be adequately funded. The Conservatives are pushing the President’s agenda, but moderates and liberals are not convinced that establishing this department will improve the efficiency of the law enforcement agencies charged with keeping America safe from terrorists.
Public opinion about how American leaders should respond to and attempt to prevent terrorism runs the gamut. One of the many reasons given why these vicious attacks, such as September 11th, take place has to do with America’s involvement in the political and social attitudes and the resulting behaviors of other countries. Middle Eastern countries often do not allow their citizens basic civil rights, which are granted to all American citizens by law. However, American involvement in international affairs often causes conflict, and instead of those we seek to protect feeling gratitude, American forces are often hated. The backlash of Anti-American sentiment is then wielded against the American government.
This issue does not raise constitutional questions because Americans believe in their civil rights and the right to defend themselves against terrorists. The President wants to exercise his power to declare war against Iraq and others, who would unfairly attack America claiming that our intentions are selfishly motivated, rather than by a desire to see that peace, justice and equality are available to all human beings. The Legislative Branch needs to give the President permission to initiate the HSO, but the leaders have mixed feelings about this plan.
The basic political values that liberals embrace are that war is not the answer to anything. No matter what the conflict, they believe that there is another way to solve it. The conservative approach is that in order to stop terrorism, evildoers must be punished. Americans cannot bear the idea of ever again having to face anything similar to the horrific tragedies that took place in New York and Washington, D.C. last year. The new attitude in America is that we have to put a stop to the radical mercenaries that threaten to rob us of our democratic way of life. It is certain that when the HSO is fully organized the 16,000 people, who will be responsible for protecting America from terrorism, will be taking their jobs seriously.
“References”
Falk, Richard. Ending the Death Dance. The Nation. April 00. www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=0004&s=falk&c=1
Falk, Richard. The New Bush Doctrine. The Nation. 7 June 0. www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=000715&c=&s=falk
Johnson, Chalmers. Blowback. The Nation. 15 October 001. www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=0011015&s=johnson
Robbins, James S. Defending Home. National Review. 7 June 00. http//libezp.lib.edu054/universe/printdoc
Shatz, Adam. The Left and /11. The Nation. September 00. www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=000&s=shatz
Ginsberg, Benjamin, Theodore J. Lowi, and Margaret Weir. We The People An Introduction to American Politics. New York W.W. Norton & Company, 001.
Please note that this sample paper on Defense Against Terrorism: For Better or Worse? is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Defense Against Terrorism: For Better or Worse?, we are here to assist you. Your persuasive essay on Defense Against Terrorism: For Better or Worse? will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.
Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!
