Can Terrorism be defeated by Military Means Only Essay

Can Terrorism be defeated by Military Means Only - Essay Example Can Terrorism be defeated by Military Means Only? A few examples of better ideas are the promises of peaceful change, social reforms and economic equity. Terrorism is a form of â€Å"asymmetrical warfare† in military parlance. This terminology defines it as a type of warfare in which one of the combatants (the weaker) chooses when and where to engage and fight the other side (the stronger enemy). The term asymmetry derives from the unequal status in terms of strength of the combatants in which a lightly-equipped force attacks the much-stronger enemy by using unorthodox means of hitting its enemy through weak points. By necessity, terrorists use ideas to gain access into people's minds and hearts to win them over to their cause. Terrorism is the dominant form of conflict in most of today’s hot spots. Anti-terrorism experts are agreed on its layman’s definition which is an act or a series of acts designed to sow terror or extreme fear. Police investigative techniques and military solutions are good only for the sh ort term but not really effective for the long haul. Discussion The aim of terrorists is intimidate and threaten people so they will act in a certain manner that is favourable or desired by the terrorists. This is but a simple form of coercion backed by threats of violence. Just as the saying that history is written by victors of a war, terrorism can be viewed from different perspectives, depending on who is using terror to achieve its aims. Individuals, groups and even governments use terror to help them achieve their objectives. Terrorism does not make any distinctions on the persons using terror but focuses on the means of terror. It means marginal groups can be labelled as terrorists as well as existing governments which employ the same techniques and methods. Agents who killed British soldiers in Palestine before Israel was given its independence were terrorists by the above definition and so were the Spanish secret agents under a previous administration during 1982 to 1986. Th e Guardia Civil (Spanish police) had formed their own terrorist units called as the Grupo Antiterrorista de Liberacion or GAL (www.onwar.com, n.d., p. 1) to counter threats posed by the growing ETA movement (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna) of the Basque region which initially had targeted members of the police and military. As can be gleaned from this initial discussion, terrorism can be viewed from different perspectives and as such could also be justified depending on who is using terrorism as a tool. In other words, terrorism is not a sole domain of disaffected individuals and marginal groups but also of duly-elected governments which find it convenient to use terrorism as state policy. Most terrorists today belong to organisations which are basically stateless. This state of being stateless is one other characteristic of asymmetrical warfare and is what makes the terror groups quite difficult to hunt down and defeat. Their structure is not hierarchical but rather more of a network which has redundant functions performed by several terror cells. In aftermath of Osama bin Laden’s reported death, many ordinary people expected terrorism threats to vanish away but anti-terrorism experts believe otherwise because the motivation is still there within the organisation of al-Qaida. The goals and the willingness to use terror have not changed a bit and many affiliated terror cells can still strike any time (Clarke, 2011, p. 1). In the thinking of most military