Brady Gambone
4/21/17
The United States 'War on Terror' is not a terrorist act. Although the use of drones, torture, and rendition are all aspects of the war on terror, none of them are terrorist in nature, even if they are designed to cause terror. Causing terror alone is not terrorism, especially if the end goal is peace.
4/21/17
The United States 'War on Terror' is not a terrorist act. Although the use of drones, torture, and rendition are all aspects of the war on terror, none of them are terrorist in nature, even if they are designed to cause terror. Causing terror alone is not terrorism, especially if the end goal is peace.
Drones have been used mainly in Afghanistan, but also in Pakistan,
Somalia, Yemen, and Iraq. These unmanned aerial vehicles, UAV's are designed to
gather signals intelligence, SIGINT, and to drop missiles on specific targets,
known as drone strikes. A drone fly's without any pilot physically in the
vehicle. The United States uses them because they keep American military
personnel safe, and its much cheaper then a conventional fighter jet. They are also
more accurate and versatile then a conventional manned jet. However, they are
designed to cause terror. The low altitude and buzzing noise they create, and
the un-defendable strikes they carry out drives fear into all below it. This
has been seen by some as terrorism because it causes terror in individuals whether
terrorists or not, on the ground. This is not terror, Drones keep more people
safe, and, unless you are a terrorist, there is nothing to be afraid of. Drones
do not target civilians, although some civilians have been killed in drone
strikes. They are MUCH more accurate than if the United States carpet bombed a
city. They not only keep American military personnel safe, but while keeping
civilians relatively safe, they can eliminate thousands of terrorists.
Torture is the act of causing pain, discomfort, and/or fear in
someone to get them to give up information or do something. This is not
terrorism. Although torture is designed to cause terror, most forms cannot kill
you. When an individual is water boarded, they will not die, and eventually
give up information the torturer wants. Its biology, if I keep hurting you
until you tell me something, eventually you will to get me to stop. Torture
with the intent to cause pain, without any desire for information, just for
punishment, is terrorism. The United States does not practice this, and anyone
who does, should be considered a terrorist.
Rendition, the act of arresting, or detaining an individual from a
foreign country and transporting them to another foreign country, or to the
United States without permission from the country of origin. This is not
terrorism. Terrorism would be if we came in, took a person at random, and
locked them away for the rest of time with no reason. The United States targets
specific individuals known to be involved in terrorism, or suspected of it.
These individuals are then used to fight the war on terror in the hopes they
will be punished for their crimes, and/or to help fight the war in order to
save more lives, and bring peace to a region.
The war on terror is
not terrorism, even if terror is used. It does however use tactics and
equipment designed to cause terror, but in order to bring an end to war.
Without the threat of terrorism, these aspects of war would not be used. This
gives the justification to use these aspects including drones, torture and
rendition.
Brady I want to agree with you but I do not based on for this I am putting aside the fact that states cannot commit terrorism.
ReplyDeleteI think with drones the aspect of double tapping is us using terrorism because I believe that the civilian that rush after an attack and rescue/aid teams that aid should not be killed and I think that the act of double tapping makes us the evil that we call terrorists. I do think that people try to excuse this by saying its because we are in a war on terror yet I think we counter terrorism with terrorism at times.
I do believe our end goal of our actions is peace yet I think with drone attacks and targeted killings we do not actually have the set goal because killing leaders does not do anything beneficial in the long run. I believe that new heads grow and when we do these actions of counter terrorism that we are causing more people to actual join those we claim to be terrorists because we become the monsters that they say we are when we kill civilians.
It hard because I would not call the United States terrorists but if I take a hard step back and think if I were in someone else's shoes then I might call the United States terrorists because we have used terror to instill fear and intimidation against people and we have killed civilians.
I think parts of what we have done are justified but I really do not think double tapping with drones is justified in anyway.
Brady,
ReplyDeleteAlthough I disagree on your argument that the War on Terror is not terrorism, you pose a strong argument as to why the "war" itself is not, even though certain components of it could be interpreted as acts of terrorism. The instance of drones you present is that people who are not terrorists don't need to fear them, but the issue of secondary strikes means that almost anyone could become a victim as a result of circumstance, not affiliations to a terrorist organization. One main point that I gathered from your post was the idea that countering terror with terror is not terrorism, because those responsible are feeling the reaction of a victim of terror. In the case of the United States, I feel as though we have committed acts of terror, and justify it in the sense we are fighting for the greater good. Similar to John Brown's actions, he used violence and terror for the greater good of ending slavery. Just wondering, do you find John Brown guilty of terrorism, or like in this case, the violence was justified and therefore not terrorism?
You made a very compelling argument, Brady. I agree that the US does not commit acts of terror during the War on Terror because they do not have the intent of killing civilians or causing terror, even if it happens sometimes. However, I do think that civilian casualties are a major problem and should be avoided at all costs, as again, that is not the intent of the US. I know you mentioned that drone strikes are a lot more accurate then other counter-terrorism tactics. But, what about SIGINT? How accurate is that? And, while torture is not a terrorist act, do you think it is an effective counter-terrorism strategy?
ReplyDeleteI think SIGINT is accurate, however, all it is is intelligence. With that intelligence we can then make accurate strikes on targets we know are enemy.
ReplyDeleteI also think torture is a counter terrorism strategy, as long as it is used on those suspected of terrorism or known terrorists for gathering information.
As you know, my blog post took an opposing angle. I do believe that some of the tactics that are used are teeming with terror, and could be considered acts of terrorism. Great post, though. You made some really good points that made me think about my post in more depth.
ReplyDelete