Essay Help : U.S. Terrorism/U.S. National Security - Essay Samples

U.S. Terrorism/U.S. National Security - Essay Samples

[Author’s Name]
[Professor’s Name]
[Course title]
[Date]

 

The contemporary world is one of rapid and extensive flows, whether electronic flows of information and communication, or physical flows of goods, services, and people. Seamlessness is a defining feature of the late-20th century; the result is an erosion of the distinction between foreign policy and domestic conditions. This is especially true for the United States where deliberate choices have amplified the connection between the world and the nation. In his foreign policy, President Clinton has continued a 50-year tradition of global engagement, the goal to expand the community of free market democracies. However sound, this approach has unintended costs, sometimes violent ones. As the world's dominant power, the United States is seen as a bulwark of the status quo. Opponents of the status quo-the repressed, dispossessed, and disgruntled-often consider the United States a natural enemy. Hostility is thus part of the price of global engagement.

As terrorism swept the world, some experts expected an active home front in the United States, but it never emerged. This was due, in part, to the vigilance of U.S. security agencies, particularly the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The difficulty terrorists faced operating in American culture was also an obstacle. But now this may be changing. The United States is much less alien to Third World nationals, whether from the Middle East or elsewhere, than 20 years ago. Members of almost every culture can find hospitable corners in major American cities. Nations such as Iran and Syria have at least partially compensated for the collapse of the Soviet-led support network. And, to a large extent, global terrorism has matured to the point where external sponsors are less crucial. No connections have been established, for instance, between the World Trade Center bombers and a foreign government. This suggests those experts who predicted the opening of a terrorist “home front” in the 1970s were not wrong, but simply premature. There is currently no concerted campaign of international terrorism directed at targets within the United States, but there could be in the future. (William J. Clinton, 2018)

At this point, it is not clear what impact widespread terrorism at home would have on American public opinion and foreign policy. It is possible, though, to delineate a range of feasible reactions. First, it might create public pressure for American disengagement from conflict-prone regions or from the Third World in general. Making the public conclude that global engagement is not worth the cost is precisely the outcome terrorists seek. And, unfortunately, total disengagement might be the only true palliative. As terrorism swept the world, some experts expected an active home front in the United States, but it never emerged. This was due, in part, to the vigilance of U.S. security agencies, particularly the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The difficulty terrorists faced operating in American culture was also an obstacle. But now this may be changing. The United States is much less alien to Third World nationals, whether from the Middle East or elsewhere, than 20 years ago. Members of almost every culture can find hospitable corners in major American cities. Nations such as Iran and Syria have at least partially compensated for the collapse of the Soviet-led support network. And, to a large extent, global terrorism has matured to the point where external sponsors are less crucial. No connections have been established, for instance, between the World Trade Center bombers and a foreign government. This suggests those experts who predicted the opening of a terrorist “home front” in the 1970s were not wrong, but simply premature. There is currently no concerted campaign of international terrorism directed at targets within the United States, but there could be in the future.

At this point, it is not clear what impact widespread terrorism at home would have on American public opinion and foreign policy. It is possible, though, to delineate a range of feasible reactions. First, it might create public pressure for American disengagement from conflict-prone regions or from the Third World in general. Making the public conclude that global engagement is not worth the cost is precisely the outcome terrorists seek. And, unfortunately, total disengagement might be the only true palliative. The recent history of the Middle East suggests it is less the actual content of American policy that provokes terrorism than the extent of U.S. involvement. The relationship is actually circular: just as American actions abroad have domestic repercussions, domestic public opinion shapes foreign policy and national security strategy. The starkest venue for this relationship is terrorism on U.S. soil. Admittedly, not all terrorism within the United States is performed by foreigners. Most is not. Still, a fringe group of those dissatisfied with American foreign policy could at any time strike targets in the United States. Today, this is becoming increasingly easy. The World Trade Center bombing may offer a glimpse of the future, serving as the first skirmish in a campaign of violence within the United States. Increasingly, American policymakers must consider whether their decisions will spark terrorism. Terrorism at home could debilitate U.S. foreign policy and national security strategy, thus destroying any chance of constructing a more positive and prosperous global system. Having won the Cold War, the United States could lose the peace to a handful of violent extremists. Only determined political leadership can prevent this.

References
William J. Clinton, A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement, Washington, DC: The White House, February 2018.