Custom «Counterterrorism: Terrorist Target» Essay Paper Sample

War on the American soil has been declared once more. Out enemies are threatening to strike our country once again. This morning we have just received intelligence on a possible threat of terrorism in one of our cities. The information we got was not vary clear on the exact location but we have a hunch that on the time. It is believed that this attack will occur possibly within 30 days and the target is a major city, one that is known to be busy and full of activities on the clock everyday. We also know that these terrorists are planning this attack based on their hatred for the advanced technology that is slowly taking over the world. These terrorists have always been against the new technology and it is our belief that they do not like it because of the way it always uncovers their uncouth tactics of causing war in the world. We have issued a red alert on this intelligence because based on the information that we have received, the attack could result in a huge number of casualties should we not be able to conceal it and bring it in control. We therefore need to handle this situation very carefully and avoid casualties (Gongol,2009).

Based on research by the Intelligence department, we have a number of options that we could use to curb this situation. The U.S government has always had a challenge of dealing with the terrorist’s threats and most of them always leave us with just one option to consider. However, in this situation we can gladly say that our hands are not that tied down as we are able to deploy not just one, but some of our methods to counter terrorism. Considering the extent of the threat, and the description given about the targets, we may have an idea of the target city. The terrorists plan to execute their attack on a city that they very well know it is always a beehive of activities. They also want to hit a place where the casualty number will be as high as possible meaning that this place has a high population. Based on previous attacks, we know that the terrorists always hit a target that will destabilize the running of the government operations and affect the economy. Considering all these assessments my department feels that we are looking at two potential targets for this attack; New York City and Los Angeles City. These two cities have got the perfect match for the terrorist’s target and we believe one of them is the target.

In dealing with this situation, we have got options for deploying our actions for counter terrorism (Crelisten, 2009). Reprisal would be an option bearing in mind that we are being attacked. This would be a similar response to that taken by the Germans when their citizens were killed in Portugal in the Naulilaa dispute. It would be in our best interest to protect our own and send out a stern warning. Another measure that we could deploy would be retributive justice.

We have been placed under attack by these terrorists and we need to seek justice for our country. We cannot tolerate threats that cause instability to the running of our country. These terrorists ought to be punished, and this can be done by raiding and capturing them. These would send a message about how strong we are and will also have a psychological effect on other people planning such acts on our country by instilling fear in them. However, these options may act in the best interest of maintaining the stern image of our government and the clear stand that we do have on terrorism but the consequences may be fatal. The terrorists have threatened to hit us at a city where the casualties’ number will be high and this could pose a major risk to our citizen’s lives. Retaliation using either reprisal or retribution may place the citizens under huge risk. The terrorists may not want to demand for anything but to simply kill our citizens by hitting us hard. It is because of this reason that I would like to recommend negotiation (Gongol, 2009).

Normally, negotiation has not been thought to be a good mechanism when dealing with terrorist organizations. However, in dealing with a situation like the one we have got in hand, we have to consider that this has happened before and it has worked. For instance, in Mexico and also Sri Lanka, there have been negotiations between the government and the rebels and this helped solve the situation with minimal casualties (George, 1991). History has previously shown that tough negotiation with these terrorists can also be productive and can go a long way in avoiding casualties. The state can also back out in secret and in a graceful manner should it fail. What we know about these terrorists is that, unlike the normal criminals, they always have a political intention. In this case we know that they are after grounding the new technology and that they are going to use violent methods to stop it. We have a chance to end this threat with the lowest casualty rate and even maybe, none. We need to make our negotiating mechanism be in a way that will definitely attract the acceptance of the terrorists. We have to make them believe that they will never achieve their goals through violence but we can come to an understanding through negotiations. To do this, we need the state to look into the threat and evaluate what progress we can make and still be considered legitimate (Gongol, 2009). It is only after this that we can be able to engage the terrorists into negotiations. Lucky for us, we still have some time to look into this option. I would recommend it because of the benefits of the fewest casualties or probably no attack will take place.

In order for us to execute this fully, we need to find out more about the terrorists interests and intentions. By doing this, we will be able to translate these interests and see what politically acceptable terms we can come to so that we can respond to them as soon as possible. We will also need to do the negotiation with complete deniability of it. This can be done by the use of the media and also go-betweens using processes that are not official. This will help maintain the stern picture of our government in dealing with terrorist threats. It is also important that we seek to set up some short-term goals for our negotiation process and to ensure we get the terrorists abide to some rules that we will set up. We have to have with us a tough bargain if the terrorists are to yield into our demands and thus we will have turned the situation around and be in control (George, 1991).

Negotiations have not always been the best approach to a situation but in this situation, my department feels that considering all facts, this is the best approach that we cold take to counter this threat. We have a chance to eliminate the threat and prevent casualties using very diplomatic ways. Getting the terrorists to be in our control will be very useful and that can only happen through negotiations as they will not have a reason to launch an early attack and that will buy us time to figure out the solution. In many situations this kind of approach may be questionable, but my department solely feels it is in the best interest of every one in eliminating the threat. I suggest we start filling in the spaces in the information we do not have yet, and take action as soon as possible.