Combating terrorism

at
Categories
Tags

 

Post at least one response for each topic below:

Compare and contrast the priorities of the Federalists and Antifederalists for the design of the new Constitution. Although the Federalists argued for a stronger central government (and in many ways, they got one), the Antifederalists won important battles, such as the adoption of the Bill of Rights and the retention of power in the states. What does the debate between Federalists and Antifederalists tell us about American politics in the late eighteenth century? In what ways are the values and concerns of these two groups similar to or different from today’s political debates?

Combating terrorism has entailed restrictions on civil liberties. How can we reconcile civil liberty and national security? Are we better off opting for more liberty or more security? Are the two goals mutually exclusive? Have Americans become less supportive of the limitations on liberty put into place after the terror attacks in 2001, or do they still perceive that it makes sense to give up some liberties in order to feel more secure?

Sample Solution

Terrorism is regarded as one of the biggest risks to social and economic growth, human rights, and peace, security, and stability in the OSCE region and beyond, according to OSCE participating states. The core principles that hold the OSCE together are under attack by terrorism. Additionally, all participating States categorically deny linking terrorism to any one racial group, nation, or religion. Since terrorism is a terrible crime that has no justification, regardless of its intent or source, the organization is steadfast in putting strong measures in place to prevent and resist it.

e indicated that the withdrawal of foreign troops is a nonnegotiable demand, they still preferred to keep some foreign presence because of the ongoing threat of attacks from other Islamic groups18.

Officials warned the President that removing 7,000 troops would result in negative consequences by giving the extremist groups a space to plan against the U.S. and its allies. Army General Austin Miller, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has expressed that the continued mission in Afghanistan is crucial to protecting U.S. security19. Additionally, removing half of the armed force from Afghanistan could be dangerous if the remaining troops who were spread too thin or short staffed. The Taliban could see this as a weakness and forcibly depose of the rest in a surprise attack. In contrast, supporters of this strategy argue that the “security in the country is deteriorating, despite the existing U.S. military presence there”20. From an economic standpoint, this option seems like a clear winner – less U.S resources in Afghanistan, less money spent abroad, and less time involved in other countries’ domestic issues. However, I would argue the United States has a heightened obligation to ensure peace in Afghanistan and leaving, would undoubtedly lead to more conflict in the future.

Instead of removing all of the troops at once, a more effective method would be to strategically remove them over a period of time, and, in parallel, bring in other organizations like the United Nations to help reconstruct Afghanistan. Post-conflict reconstruction is holistic and multidimensional effort to simultaneously improve military (restoration of law and order), politics (governance), economy (rehabilitation and development) and social condition (justice and reconciliation)21. If the United States put more effort in improving the economic dimension of reconstruction, I believe there will be more meaningful progress. Projects which involves restoring physical infrastructure and facilities, establishing of social services, creating the private sector and implementing structural growth are ways in which a country can build a foundation that is not rooted in corruption and violence.

Taking into consideration Afghanistan’s strategic geographic location and natural resour

This question has been answered.

Get Answer