Example research essay topic: U S Embassy Terrorist Attacks - 1,379 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

Threat Maintenance and Prevention in the 21 st Century Despite the US success in Afghanistan and elimination of the Hussein's order in Iraq, heavily marked by social hysteria and media hype, the actual threat of terrorism has a significant tendency to grow. The decline, which commenced during the late 1980 s and includes reductions in the number of incidents, groups, and fatalities contrasts with increase in the number of people injured in terrorist attacks of the 1990 s. Radical Islamic groups are responsible for only a small percentage of terrorist attacks but are disproportionately account for casualties. According to many politicians, pundits, and media personalities, the threat of global terrorism is growing. During 1999, for example, every senior U. S.

national security official-including the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) -warned that terrorism was rising and going to get worse (Botta, 21). Data from the past 30 years show that terrorism is a dynamic threat that can cause serious harm but can also be deterred and contained. In the 1970 s, groups that engaged in terrorism enjoyed a general advantage over most governments. In the 1970 s, nations lacked the equipment, tactics, doctrine, and training to combat terrorism. That is not the case today. Compare, for example, West Germany in 1972 with Peru in 1997.

The Germans mishandled the hostage barricade at the Olympic village and failed to save the Israeli athletes. Peru, by contrast, rescued 72 hostages held by Tupac Amaru guerrillas during a daring daylight assault. All of the terrorists died in the assault, and the Peruvians only lost two soldiers. Peru is not an isolated example. Countries such as Singapore, Egypt, and the Philippines have also substantially augmented their capabilities to confront terrorist operations. Better capabilities to combat terrorism and the apparent reluctance of states to support such activity have created an inhospitable environment for groups that want to utilize terrorism.

Without the support of a state or protected community, a groups ability to operate is curtailed. However, someone as radical and bloodthirsty as Osama Bin Laden has been able to carry out sustained attacks at will. Protected by the Taliban in Afghanistan, Bin Laden has had success in mounting follow-up attacks since the bombings of the U. S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998.

In the wake of U. S. retaliatory strikes on Afghanistan and Iraq, he may in fact have more reasons to attack Americans. Conceding that the motives for his actions probably remain unchanged, one can only conclude that his capabilities have eroded, that countermeasures have denied him opportunities, or some combination of the two. The threat of being killed or captured appears to be an important factor that deters many groups that engage in terrorism. If not, why would individuals such as Bin Laden or Pablo Escobar of Colombia feel it necessary to deny responsibility for high-profile attacks?

Last December, for example, Bin Laden, along with his benefactors, the Taliban, publicly denied any responsibility for the hijacking of an Air India commercial jet. In 1993, shortly after the bombing of the World Trade Center, Pablo Escobar, a drug warlord waging a vicious terrorist campaign to avoid extradition to the United States, sent the U. S. government a letter denying any role in the attack (Laqueur, 71 - 72). Worries about terrorists using nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons are probably exaggerated; however deserve appropriate public and governmental attention. The isolated case of Aum Shinryko in Japan shows that such an attack is in the realm of the possible but also highlights the enormous technical and scientific difficulties in conducting such an operation.

Moreover, Aum Shinrykos attack secured it the unwelcome attention of Japanese authorities, who quickly rounded up and jailed key leaders. Although considering the recent events and trends in Afghanistan and Iraq the threat of terrorism in general has diminished, and the likelihood that weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of terrorists is low, governments cannot afford to drop their guard in the misguided belief that terrorism has been or can be eliminated. There are some groups, fortunately few, that want to cause mass casualties and are willing to kill indiscriminately. Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers, for instance, have established themselves as one of the only groups in the world that consistently uses suicide bombers.

Not even Hamas and Hezbollah have used this tactic with the frequency and brutality demonstrated by the Tamil Tigers. The future of terrorism will be dictated by four key factors. First, actions by governments can provoke terrorist attacks. U. S. military strikes in Iraq in 1991 and in Bosnia in 1999, for instance, were followed by a significant increase in low-level, ineffective harassment attacks.

Turkey also experienced a surge in attacks after capturing PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan. Although this type of terrorism tends to be more of a nuisance than a serious threat, it is a reminder that the actions of governments may elicit retaliatory terrorist attacks. A second but related factor is the willingness of other states to protect or sponsor groups that engage in terrorism. When a government takes sides in a foreign conflict where other equally powerful states have an opposite stance, the potential for international terrorism increases dramatically. The U. S.

policy tilt toward Israel in the 1970 s and early 1980 s was opposed aggressively by the Soviet Union, which in turn provided aid to Syria, Iraq, and Libya. If one or more states tolerate or support terrorism, a dynamic is created that is likely to spawn more attacks and greater casualties. Protection, training, and materiel give groups an advantage in carrying out terrorist operations (Kaplan, 172). So far, the United Nations has been fairly effective in applying pressure on states that tolerate terrorism.

A third element contributing to terrorism is the breakdown of political systems in settling ethnic or religious clashes. The tenacity and longevity of groups such as the ETA, the IRA, and the FARC are reminders that military-backed counterterrorism operations alone are not likely to eliminate the threat (Kaplan, 208). Conversely, progress on the political front, such as the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, can go a long way in reducing the violence. Finally, governments need to maintain effective security measures and respond to new threats as they develop. Although defensive and offensive security measures are not foolproof, they can be effective.

The U. S. embassy in Tanzania, originally designed and constructed by the Israelis to protect its inhabitants against a major car bomb, had very few casualties. The U.

S. embassy in Kenya, by contrast, was not designed to protect against such an attack and was virtually destroyed. Individuals bent on terrorism generally pay attention to security measures. During the Gulf War, two Iraqi agents intended to bomb the U. S. embassy in Manila but shifted to another target after encountering a formidable security perimeter (Wildavsky, 103).

Instead, they attempted to bomb the Thomas Jefferson Cultural Center, an undefended library. Fortunately, they did a poor job of paying attention during bomb class and prematurely detonated the device. One of the aspiring terrorists died, and the other was severely wounded. Prevention and preparation can pay important dividends in deterring terrorism.

But a governments response must be tempered with reason and prudence. Security and law enforcement policies must reflect the values and the vision that protect and uphold freedom. A nation respects the views of the minority, a government that defends the weak, the people that seeks justice for all, and a faith that entrusts individuals with the right and duty to be free are those principles which can guarantee the best protection against terrorism and become the most useful tool in threat prevention policy. Bibliography Kaplan, D. E. , Marshall, A. (1999). The cult at the end of the world: The terrifying story of the Aum doomsday cult, from the subways of Tokyo to the nuclear arsenals of Russia.

New York: Crown Laqueur, W. (2003). The new face of terrorism. The Washington Quarterly Botta R. (2003, April). Patterns of global terrorism 1999.

U. S. State Department. Washington, DC Wildavsky, R. (1999, January).

Are we ready for biot error? Readers Digest

Research essay sample on U S Embassy Terrorist Attacks