Obama and Trump: Opposing anti-terrorism strategies
An abrupt change of foreign security policies is anticipated when Donald Trump takes office, particularly in the anticipated policy to combat the threat of terrorism. President Obama believes the US should provide a safe-haven for displaced refugees, as well as work with countries in the Middle East to provide citizens access to education, social services, and other social constructs, which will limit the supply of potential recruits to radical groups. He encourages transparency in the fight against radicalism to provide “informed public debate, and… a potential check on unfettered executive power” (Obama, 7). Trump claims US policy should take a different route; Muslim immigration should …show more content…
This strategy is meant to garner public debate and support, which ensures US citizens understand what is being done to combat terrorism. Deploying resources is costly and congressional committees have budgetary control of defense spending and the use of the US military (Adams & Williams 2010: 6). Thus, public support is important to make resources available for the fight against terror. Additionally, disseminating pertinent information is meant to continue to combat the terrorist goals and not allow the US public to lose faith in its leaders and military. Beyond the democratic goals of employing such a strategy, this method is a form of coercion through persuasion without the indirect use of force (Goldstein 2002: 31). Theoretically, a public war will result in terrorists realizing they are grossly outmanned and outgunned and accordingly, their desired goals are unlikely to be obtained because the US is not altering its behavior because of them. Expressing knowledge of terrorists’ general locations and capabilities also shows the strength of US intelligence; a hindrance to surprise attacks terrorists use to operate. Obama has a sound theory, but an argument against the policy is possible. Combatting terrorism is far from conventional warfare, so coercion may not be a strong strategy to implement. By Western standards, terrorists are viewed as irrational …show more content…
Logically, Trump’s expected outcomes are misguided because his policies validate terrorists’ goals by changing western norms. Moreover, isolationism and secrecy go against democratic norms and are impractical to implement today. Trump’s policies risk magnifying the difficulties of counterterrorism; it is a long-term fight and removing leadership of a terrorist group through surprise is unlikely to succeed in destroying the group. Obama’s policy logically fights to combat terrorism from the ground up while adhering to democratic norms. Obama’s strategically sound policy is more necessary, not an off the cuff plan that cuts off foreign relations and
An abrupt change of foreign security policies is anticipated when Donald Trump takes office, particularly in the anticipated policy to combat the threat of terrorism. President Obama believes the US should provide a safe-haven for displaced refugees, as well as work with countries in the Middle East to provide citizens access to education, social services, and other social constructs, which will limit the supply of potential recruits to radical groups. He encourages transparency in the fight against radicalism to provide “informed public debate, and… a potential check on unfettered executive power” (Obama, 7). Trump claims US policy should take a different route; Muslim immigration should …show more content…
This strategy is meant to garner public debate and support, which ensures US citizens understand what is being done to combat terrorism. Deploying resources is costly and congressional committees have budgetary control of defense spending and the use of the US military (Adams & Williams 2010: 6). Thus, public support is important to make resources available for the fight against terror. Additionally, disseminating pertinent information is meant to continue to combat the terrorist goals and not allow the US public to lose faith in its leaders and military. Beyond the democratic goals of employing such a strategy, this method is a form of coercion through persuasion without the indirect use of force (Goldstein 2002: 31). Theoretically, a public war will result in terrorists realizing they are grossly outmanned and outgunned and accordingly, their desired goals are unlikely to be obtained because the US is not altering its behavior because of them. Expressing knowledge of terrorists’ general locations and capabilities also shows the strength of US intelligence; a hindrance to surprise attacks terrorists use to operate. Obama has a sound theory, but an argument against the policy is possible. Combatting terrorism is far from conventional warfare, so coercion may not be a strong strategy to implement. By Western standards, terrorists are viewed as irrational …show more content…
Logically, Trump’s expected outcomes are misguided because his policies validate terrorists’ goals by changing western norms. Moreover, isolationism and secrecy go against democratic norms and are impractical to implement today. Trump’s policies risk magnifying the difficulties of counterterrorism; it is a long-term fight and removing leadership of a terrorist group through surprise is unlikely to succeed in destroying the group. Obama’s policy logically fights to combat terrorism from the ground up while adhering to democratic norms. Obama’s strategically sound policy is more necessary, not an off the cuff plan that cuts off foreign relations and