War on Terrorism Questions
- Evaluation of Jeffrey Record’s Argument in “Bounding the War on Terrorism”: Jeffrey Record’s argument in “Bounding the War on Terrorism” critiques the U.S. government’s approach to the War on Terror, particularly its broad scope and indefinite nature. Record argues that the war’s lack of clearly defined objectives, undefined enemy, and endless duration could lead to unintended consequences, resource exhaustion, and erosion of civil liberties. He suggests that the U.S. should focus on containing and disrupting terrorist organizations rather than pursuing a global war. The correctness of Record’s argument depends on one’s perspective. Critics of the War on Terror often echo some of his concerns, pointing to the prolonged conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, proponents argue that a broader approach is necessary to prevent future terrorist threats.
- Assessment of Bush Administration’s Aspiration in Iraq and Its Implications: The Bush administration’s aspiration to establish a moderate Shiite center in Iraq as a counterbalance to Iran’s influence didn’t fully materialize. The empowerment of Shiite political parties with close ties to Iran resulted in strengthening Iran’s influence in Iraq. This observation underscores the complexity of war and its unintended consequences. It highlights that geopolitical dynamics, cultural factors, and the nature of conflicts can lead to outcomes different from what policy-makers initially envisioned.
- Thomas Barnett’s Assessment of Global Threat Environment and Implications for U.S. Strategy: Thomas Barnett’s assessment highlights the shift in global threats from state actors to non-state/transnational actors. The implication for U.S. strategy is the need to adapt to this new threat landscape by focusing on countering non-state actors, such as terrorist organizations, cybercriminals, and other transnational threats. This might involve a mix of military, diplomatic, economic, and technological strategies. Examples could include counterterrorism operations, international cooperation on cybersecurity, and efforts to address root causes of extremism.
- Comparison Between Israeli-Hezbollah and U.S.-Al Qaeda Cases: Anthony Cordesman’s assessment of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict provides insights into lessons learned. A parallel can be drawn between this case and the U.S.-Al Qaeda conflict in terms of asymmetrical warfare, the challenge of dealing with non-state actors, and the difficulty of achieving clear victory. The implications for the global war on terror suggest that addressing such conflicts requires understanding the dynamics of asymmetric warfare, engaging in intelligence-based operations, and utilizing a combination of military and non-military measures.
Each of these topics is complex and multidimensional, with differing perspectives and interpretations. To fully explore them, it’s important to delve deeper into the sources, scholarly analyses, and relevant historical context.
QUESTION
Description
1.1. Evaluate Jeffrey Record’s basic argument in Bounding the War on Terrorism. Is he correct or not? Why or why not?
2.2. In a news item during the Bush administration, a reporter for the New York Times noted that, “From the very start of the American occupation of Iraq, at least some in the Bush administration saw an opportunity to curtail the influence of Iran’s radical Shiite leaders by producing an alternative, moderate center of Shiite Islam that would effectively neuter Tehran in ideological, political and strategic terms. This was abundantly clear to Iran’s clerical rulers, whose paramount priority since they seized power in 1979 has been to preserve their revolution and their grip on their own country.” Has this aspiration by some Bush policy-makers proven true or has some other reality developed? What does this observation say about the nature of war?
3. Does the U.S. Face a Future of Never-ending Sub-national & Trans-national Violence?, Thomas Barnett states that: The post-Cold War era has witnessed an amazing “downshifting” of the source of threats to global stability. In this short span of history, the world has moved from an era in which global nuclear war was the dominant threat, through a transitional era in which it seemed that regional rogues would become the primary source of system instability, to one in which it is increasingly recognized that trans-national or non-state actors will constitute the main source of violence – sometimes of a mass nature – that has the capacity to perturb, even in a significant fashion, the functioning of the global economy. In effect, America’s definition of the threat has de-escalated from an “evil empire” to “evil regimes” to “evil actors.” What are the implications for American strategic planning based on Barnett’s assessment of the global threat environment? A proper response will include examples and references from the assigned readings in this course.
4. In his assessment of the Israeli-Hezbollah War, Anthony Cordesman provided some preliminary lessons learned from that conflict. Demonstrate how a parallel can be drawn between the Israeli-Hezbollah case and that of the United States and Al Qaeda. Discuss the implications of this assessment for the “global war on terror.”
Fill in the order form and submit all your files, including instructions, rubrics, and other information given to you by your instructor.
Once you complete filling the forms, complete your payment. We will get the order and assign it to a writer.
When your order is completed, it’s assigned to an editor for approval. The editor approves the order.
Once approved, we will upload the order to your account for you to download. You can rate your writer or give your customer review.
