Terrorism continues to threaten global security and the American interests. It is noteworthy that the emergence of the internet and consequential globalization has served to complicate the situation even further. In response, the United States of America through multiple departments has developed a number of counterterrorism and prevention methods. These measures can be split into two large subgroups; preemptive action and the reactive action. Under the preemptive action, the measure is taken in advance based on the available intelligence. This, therefore, seeks to forestall a possible attack. Under the reactive action, the measure is taken after the attack has occurred. Usually, the intention is not merely revenge as is popularly thought. Rather, the spirit is to contain the insurgents and have terrorist activities under control. In other words, the measure seeks to return the situation to the pre-attack state of affairs.
Preemptive action could include any activity that goes into preventing an attack. In its extreme, preventive action has involved actual attacks. In 2003, the Bush led administration attacked Iraq as a preventive measure as the latter was suspected to be assembling weapons of mass destruction. Other forms of preemptive action include evacuation of civilians from hot spots, intense surveillance of entry points such as airports, border lines, among others and the observation of criminal-terrorist collusions. Criminal-terrorist collusion refers to instances where domestic criminals are recruited into terrorist factions with the intention of aiding in the terrorist activities in return for a payment. In addition, a different path that falls in the same category entails diplomatic pursuits and ideological arguments intended to win the support of the international community in efforts to combat terrorism. The most known reactive measure is a direct attack. A perfect example in this category is America’s successful pursuit of Osama Bin Laden after he claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.
Given the situation highlighted in the case, it is essential to conduct a risk assessment for purposes of identifying likely targets. The leads from the case include the fact that mass casualties are intended, the location should be high profile, the attack targets American nationals and that the attacks seek to wage a violent campaign against America. Some of the methods of attack that could facilitate the achievement of these objects include aircraft and motor vehicle violations, use of explosives and firearms, use of destructive devices and machine guns. Within the same context, the attackers could employ criminal-terrorist collusions in the form of bank robberies, immigration forgeries and transportation related incidents such as holding aircrafts hostage, among others. In that context, some of the high risk areas include markets, malls, airports, transport terminals like train terminals, schools and any other social places where masses gather.
With the intelligence available, it is essential to have a counterterrorist strategy. This paper proposes a multiple approach. Firstly, civilians must be alerted of a likely terror attack occurrence. This is not intended to scare them. Rather, it raises their suspicion and places them on alert. Secondly, the identified hot spots need to be highly secured. Where the numbers gathering are enormous, such spots need to be cordoned off for some time. This diverts the terrorist activities and may even destabilize their strategy. In addition, it would be beneficial to arrests any suspected domestic criminals. This needs to be carried out with regard to the due process and backed up with thorough investigations. Such criminals may give useful leads.
References
Art, R. J., & Richardson, L. (2007). Democracy and Counterterrorism: Lessons from the the Past. New York: US Institute of Peace Press.
Hamm, M. S. (2005). Crimes Commited by Terrorist Groups: Theory, Research and Prevention. Washington: Deaprtment of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/211203.pdf
Westphal, S. (2009). Counterterrorism: Policy of Preemptive Action. Washington: USAWC Strategy Research. Retrieved from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army-usawc/westphal.pdf
