Why Are We Winning The War On Terrorism
Are we winning the war on terrorism? There are two different views on how we should deal with terrorism in the long term. The first view being that we should destroy everything and everyone in that terrorist group or anyone working with them. The second view being that we should eliminate the root causes of terrorism on a global level. Even if you can decide on which view to choose, how do know if you are winning the war or not? Is it how many terrorist attacks have arisen since 9/11 or do you go by the body count theirs verses ours? We are presented with two arguments one saying yes we are winning the war on terrorism. The second being no, we are not winning the war. I will start with Douglas J. Feith, who believes we are winning the war
…show more content…
This will come from John Gershman. He says that Americans are now more vulnerable because of President Bush's failure of leadership. Gershman believes that with the occupation of Iraq we have given people a reason to join and made it easier to join terrorist groups. He does say that the President has done a few god things like improved our international intelligence sharing, and improved airline and border security. The President has also cracked down on terrorist finances, arrested some of al-Quidas high members, and has disrupted planned terrorist attacks. Even with that being said, this should not cover up the fact that the President has made U.S. Citizens more vulnerable. Gershman has set six reasons why President Bush's approach has …show more content…
To do this we must strengthen and help create democracy in all countries. We need to stop supporting repressive regimes. We must also deal with failing states, and make a change in our policies dealing with the Middle East. Gershman suggest that we must use all four parts to fight against terrorism, or it may not work as well. This will provide for a safer America and allows us to receive our old civil liberties. I find that there is a real distinction on their view verse the view for the liberalist and the realist models that were presented to us in class. If you side with Feith, then you believe in the realist model. If you side with Gershman's argument then you see things through a more liberalist viewpoint. In Feith's argument, he believes that we must use our military might to stop terrorism. We must remove Saddam Hussein from power because he is a vital threat to our countries security. Feith also uses the "prudence" in his argument, which is a key word in the view of realism. From Feith's view we must use "force" so that we can get the desired results from these terrorist, this is a strong view point from the realist, because that is the number one way to get and keep
This will come from John Gershman. He says that Americans are now more vulnerable because of President Bush's failure of leadership. Gershman believes that with the occupation of Iraq we have given people a reason to join and made it easier to join terrorist groups. He does say that the President has done a few god things like improved our international intelligence sharing, and improved airline and border security. The President has also cracked down on terrorist finances, arrested some of al-Quidas high members, and has disrupted planned terrorist attacks. Even with that being said, this should not cover up the fact that the President has made U.S. Citizens more vulnerable. Gershman has set six reasons why President Bush's approach has …show more content…
To do this we must strengthen and help create democracy in all countries. We need to stop supporting repressive regimes. We must also deal with failing states, and make a change in our policies dealing with the Middle East. Gershman suggest that we must use all four parts to fight against terrorism, or it may not work as well. This will provide for a safer America and allows us to receive our old civil liberties. I find that there is a real distinction on their view verse the view for the liberalist and the realist models that were presented to us in class. If you side with Feith, then you believe in the realist model. If you side with Gershman's argument then you see things through a more liberalist viewpoint. In Feith's argument, he believes that we must use our military might to stop terrorism. We must remove Saddam Hussein from power because he is a vital threat to our countries security. Feith also uses the "prudence" in his argument, which is a key word in the view of realism. From Feith's view we must use "force" so that we can get the desired results from these terrorist, this is a strong view point from the realist, because that is the number one way to get and keep