The guarantee peace in international level for the foreseeable

The events that could be possibly
classified as connected to terrorism have taken place in the USA since the
1920s. Even though, the most vivid manifestation of international terrorism has
been marked in history by the September 11th terrorist attacks by the ISIS on
the US. Since then, to guarantee peace in international level for the
foreseeable future, the United States has started confronting the threat of
terrorism by taking aggressive actions on uncovering groups engaged in
terrorist activities, by analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the enemies,
by developing the counter-terrorism strategies.

With the purpose to eliminate the
threats to the stability of democratic states, the government develops
counter-terrorism policies, which represent themselves as an array of methods
and tactics intended to eliminate to the enemies’ incentive to commit acts of
terror. At the same time, the government, trying to identify and prevent
potential attacks, has often failed. Thus, the assessment of the potential
failures in terrorism prevention usually leads to the establishment of
investigation committees.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

In theory, the founder of the
International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism, Boaz Ganor, has outlined
three potential goals of counter-terrorism policy. The first one has been
represented by the prevention of conflict escalation, second intends to minimize
the damage caused by terrorism, and the last aims to eliminate the terrorism as
such (Ganor, 2005). However, Ganor has also stated that complete eradication of
terrorism could not be achieved in practice, as the roots of all conflicts have
not been possible to demolish, and terrorist organizations would not ever lose
the motivation to fight. (Darnell, 2010).

Another scholar, Todd Stewart,
General, United States Air Force, has developed the counter-terrorism model
that introduced an innovative approach to prevent and respond to potential
terrorist-related events. Eventually, Paula Gordon, the researcher in Homeland
Security, has made an adaptation of the model, which helped to clarify key
differences, as well as similarities, between the emergency management cycle
and the homeland security cycle. The model consists of two blocks supported by
5 cycle actions each: the first block, the phase before the terrorist attack,
has combined identification of threats, deterrence, prediction, prevention, and
mitigation; the second block has been described with detection, crisis
management, forensics, post-event response and recovery (Gordon, 2011).

Despite all the models and
approaches developed, the realities in preventing and fighting against the
terrorism have not been connected to the theories. With this purpose, every two
years, the General Assembly of the UNO reviews the Strategy on Global
Counter-Terrorism in order to align it with the counter-terrorism priorities of
different states (CTITF, 2016). Even though, the main agenda of any
international organization remains the same: addressing the conditions of
terrorism spread, prevention of the terrorism, ensuring the strength of the
state or organization, and maintaining the human rights by the outline of the
law.

In fact, getting back to Ganor, it
has been suggested to address the issue of rationality, while connecting the
terrorist actions with the goal of the terrorism itself (Ganor, 2005). Truly,
the common error, leading to the failure of counter-terrorism strategies, has
laid in the subjective assessment of those, who actually coping with terrorism.
Thus, it is important to include the history, cultural, psychological and
socio-economic aspects perceived by the enemy to the counter-terrorism
strategies. Such approach has been definitely more applicable to the practice.
Still, despite all the innovative methods, every strategic model to counter
terrorism have included traditional military, criminal justice, community and
cyber sub-models within one (Staniforth, 2016).

Applying the theories to practice
would be representative to discuss how the U.S. government identifies the
potential of the threat. Taking as an example the crimes committed by the ISIS,
the history of the attacks have been commonly known so far: on a particular
event or during a holiday, a relatively unknown member of a radical group
attacks innocent people in an unprotected public space without warning. Even
such actions have fallen under the term of terrorism, still, it becomes not
always possible to prevent them. Nevertheless, it does not mean that the
government has not taken any measures, as the tragedy of the same scale as it
was on September 9th, 2011, has never happened again.

In addition, the usual practice of
threat identification includes such tasks as collecting the information,
determining the design basis of the threat and its rating. So far, the U.S
Departments of Justice and Homeland Security have been improving already developed
systems of gathering and analysis of threat­related informationin in order to assess
risks, and reduce the possibility of potential attacks in pubic and private sectors
(BJA, 2003). In addition, The Department of Homeland Security has developed a
computer­based system that intents to identify the threats on the national
level by gathering and analyzing the data from every possible source of information.
Even though, none of this would be possible to implement without regional law
enforcement.

Not less important, the ability of
the government to manage public outrage and provide a post-incident response
has been equally significant for counter-terrorism policies. Today, the ISIS
keeps losing its territories in Iraq and Syria, while the USA has been
developing strategies to decentralize the group. Even though, the ISIS ideology
together with the social disenfranchisement of Muslims in the West has not
allowed reducing the influence of the radical group. Obviously, the US nation
has zero tolerance to the terrorism, however, enormous budgets spent on
counter-terrorism in the country come into direct conflict with the purpose of
the fight. At least, the government should remove the barriers that exist now
between the private lives of individuals and civil liberties. Lastly, only this
approach could possibly succeed in maintaining the peace in word order
supported by the established superpower of the USA.