The War on Terror: Increasing Airstrikes

Erika Dennery
Professor Shirk
Global Politics of Terrorism
April 22nd, 2018
The War on Terror: Increasing Airstrikes
It is widely known that the United States has been fighting an international military campaign known as the War on Terror for over ten years now, and there is no indication that the fighting will stop anytime soon. This is in part due to the fact that the threat of terrorists overseas committing acts against the United States is unpredictable and it is hard to determine a way to prevent these acts from occurring other than simply attempting the fight the terrorists at the very source through the use of airstrikes. While these strikes seem logical and like an ingenious way to protect the citizens of the U.S., it turns out that air strikes are responsible for a large amount of civilian deaths and they may not be entirely useful in preventing the threats we perceive as real; therefore, if airstrikes are not doing any good, then what is their purpose and why is their use increasing with each passing day?
It has been reported that since President Donald Trump came into power that airstrike usage has gone up considerably when compared with their usage during Barack Obama’s time as President. The increase in strike volume “represents a more aggressive approach” as said by Luke Hartig, a former counterterrorism advisor in the Obama administration, but the increase in strikes does not necessarily mean that this approach is actually helping the problem. Along with this, though strikes have increased, there has not actually been any tangible increase in the threat that those being struck down pose. Hartig also said that “we don't have any real basis to assess, for example, why strikes have doubled in Somalia, or if any of these operations are being conducted in direct support of partner forces on the ground rather than as unilateral actions against the threats we face as a nation.” The claim that President Trump may be acting out of his own volition rather than acting in accordance with human intelligence on the ground is startling, and disconcerting. The real question is, what is the need for an increase in airstrikes when no new threat has presented itself and if civilian lives are being put at risk during the process?
Unsurprisingly, Barack Obama implemented measures that were supposed to prevent airstrikes in places that are not active war zones but Donald Trump went around these blockades by deeming zones he wished to strike as dangerous so that he could send airstrikes their way anyways. This tactic is one that seems to be fueled by dishonest intentions, especially due to the fact that as the strikes have increased, the transparency of the U.S. seems to have decreased. As of October 2017, not too long after Trump’s rise to the Presidency, the flow of information on monthly strike data stopped being given out indicating that there is something President Trump wishes to keep hidden from the rest of the world. Therefore one must wonder what is really going on and if the stikes being sent out are truly justified or if they are being used unfairly and unjustly against the people in countries we deem to be threatening.

Regardless of President Trump’s status as the most powerful political figure in the world, there need to be more regulations on what he is and isn’t allowed to do in terms of continuing the War on Terror. It is certainly important that we protect our country to the best of our ability, but it is also important that innocents are not being struck down in the process and that information isn’t being kept secret in order to further an unknown political agenda. Airstrikes should be used at times when no other option is available and when there is reliable information present to confirm that only terrorists and those who have negative intentions for the United States are being targeted, other than that, the strikes seem to be causing more harm than good, especially when left unmonitored and unregulated in the hands of the most powerful people in the world.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Revisiting Terrorisms Definition

Patrick Dancoes POL-347 Prof. Shirk Defining Terrorism 2 nd 5/2/18 Defining Terrorism    At the begging of the course, I argued the definition of terrorism was; the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. Now, after studying terrorism over the semester and reviewing our case studies, I believe terrorism is foundationally broken into five different types of terrorism; Criminal Terrorism, Political Terrorism, State-Sponsored Terrorism, Religious Terrorism, and a catchall, Dissent Terrorism. To bring together these five terrorist types into a single definition of terrorism, I also acknowledge the fact that this means that the terms ‘terrorism’ and ‘terrorist’ are mainly socially constructed, as the term has virtually morphed over the course when describing different terrorist groups.  ...
Read more

The Terrorist Threat of White Supremacy

Reports from across the United States suggest that in recent years, the size and strength of white supremacist organizations has been rising rapidly. In light of unprecedented spikes in immigration into the US, many disaffected young white men are turning to ideologies like white nationalism and white supremacism that promise to defend their status as the demographic majority and power center of the US. But what exactly should the rest of us expect of this growing strain of racism? What sort of threat do white supremacist organizations pose to America? The explosive growth of white supremacism can be best analyzed by breaking it down into its various segments. The majority of the adherents to this growing movement are simply young white men who feel they have been marginalized by American society. Eight years spent living in Obama’s America have forced ordinary Americans to cling to identity politics in ways that haven’t been seen on this scale since the mid-20 th Century. The p...
Read more