http://www.infocusnews.net/content/view/20838/526/
This article I read was very interesting. This article comes from the largest muslim paper out of California. I thought this would be a good artucle for the class since we have been talking about the use of the word, "terrorism". It starts out talking about since the invasion of Iraq. "The sad fact is that the so-called “war on terrorism” is failing and that terrorism is spreading around the world like a cancer and is posing more and more danger for us." Another way that this article relates to the class is the fact that we have been talking about terrorist getting nuclear weapons. Throughout this whole article Parko talks about how the great military force can do nothing. Parko idea of solving terrorism, he says that aid is the best way to prevent terrorism. Even if we just drop our military budget by 10% we could give all that aid to people in countries where terrorism threaves. By doing this Parko feels that it would create a hard time for terrorist to find people that are willing to die for there cause. I think that military force should not be cut by 10%. If we did this then I think it would make it that much harder to fight terrorist in different areas. To me I would rather fight a war on terror away from the United States then in it. I also, wanted to know what everyone thinks about this article. Having it come from the largest muslim paper in California, do you guys think that has a influne on the article. Would the muslim conection make it a reason that the article feels aid should be sent instead of bombs?
Let me know?
Thanks
Austin Conners
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I'm sure it's possible that the Muslim influence may very well have an effect. Nobody likes to see anybody they're affiliated with harmed in any sort of way since that certainly makes it more likely that they may come after your particular group in general. Of course similar theories have been eschewed plenty of times and there is undoubtedly some validity to it. A "velvet glove" approach does seem to be the best idea, but I'm convinced that it's not as simple as that. Obviously having a military presence does seem to make a difference and I'm definitely not convinced that the spread of terrorism is because of the "war on terror." It seems irrational to suggest that creating military threats actually breeds terrorism, when it certainly makes it more difficult for it to occur. It seems like the increase in terrorism is mostly a result of globalization because it has reduced costs and increased capabilities of terrorism.
One thing that should be noted about this article is that even though it comes from a Muslim newspaper, the author is a guest writer and a Quaker. So, I don't know how much Muslim influence the article has, although it is telling that it was printed at all. If anything, this implies that it may reflect the views of the newspaper's editors.
The basic idea of this article reminds me of another that I read a while ago; they both hint that the terrorist threat stems from resentment towards the United States. I don't agree with the author's idea that the elimination of this resentment would completely eradicate terrorism; there can always be some person that will see terrorism as the most effective method to achieve their goals. However, I do see some merit to this idea that resentment can contribute to the terrorist threat. Focusing only on this resentment would be a mistake, as there are definitely other contributors, but denying its existence would be detrimental as well.
One theory I have heard concerning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that it draws terrorists out of their holes and onto the battleground. As we maintain a military presence in the Middle East this forces terrorists to fight in their own lands rather than on U.S. soil. In this case I believe that the best defense is a good offense. The more we keep terrorists on their heels the less they can execute attacks here.
I do agree to an extent on the views of this article; statistics show that terrorist activities have increased since the war on terror began. The problem isn't the war on terrorism but the tactics used and the way it is portrayed to the Arab world.I think the deployment of aid should be a part of the war on terrorism becuase it is not a fight against a state or an organized military but a fight against an ideology that could influence people across the world.
To be honest I think that we can never pursue a solution that is not multi-faceted. We must use all of our resources. If we decreased military spending, the money would most likely go to other government agencies like the CIA, FBI, Department of Homeland Security or some domestic social welfare program. The intricacies of federal funding don't make it so easy to allocate money here or there while not upsetting someone's constituency. So, we do the best we can, we keep our army cutting edge (because let's be honest terrorism is not the biggest, nor most likely threat), and create programs that foster good diplomacy, peace and dialogue between nations and smaller subset groups.
I really liked what Noah and Michael said. I agree that our military needs to be careful in how it prosecutes the war and that aid should be an integral part of the GWOT. I also think that we need more than one approach to effectively dismantle al Qaeda. After our classroom discussion and some articles that I've read, it does seem that al Qaeda is evolving into more of an ideology that is inspiring others to act violently. I think America should focus its efforts on undermining bin Laden's message as well as strategically eliminating active terrorist threats.
(*please count for week 4/7)
Post a Comment