New National Security Strategy and Preemption

Terrorism
What are the best plans that this nation can make in order to counter the threat of terrorism? Is negotiate with terrorists an option? Can a nation preempt a planned terrorist plot? Is retaliation a reasonable idea when counterterrorism is on the table? These issues will be addressed in this paper.
Counterterrorism Strategies
Scholars point to several ways in which governments respond to or prepare for potential terrorists attacks. Helen Fenwick, a professor of law in the UK, points to three “standard government policy responses to terrorism”: a) consider the fight against terrorism as warfare, which is essentially depending on the military and intelligence components of government (the U.S. has conducted military campaigns against terrorists); b) use a “police-based” approach, treating terrorism as a kind of criminal activity (which it certainly is), by employing actions through the criminal justice system; and c) use political tactics and try negotiation with rogue nations that harbor terrorists (Fenwick, 2008, p. 259).
On page 261 Fenwick entertains the idea of a government using “proscription,” which is a smart counterterrorism approach. Any group can be banned and punished “if it promotes or encourages terrorism [Or] if it glorifies it,” Fenwick explains. In the UK, if a particular group makes threats against citizens or the government, it can be proscribed (Terrorism Act 2006), which basically means that it has issued serious threats and it can be taken to trial where criminal sanctions may be applied to it. This is a proactive approach, and in the U.S. If a person is deemed to be a risk to national security, he or she may be detained and held for prosecution.
Negotiation: How does a government negotiate with a terrorist organization? This is a difficult question and the answer is rarely if ever definitive. When President Obama authorized the Navy SEALS to take Obama out in Pakistan, there was no negotiation possible. Still, if the United Nations is bringing desperately needed food and other supplies to needy refugees in Sudan, for example, and the two-and-a-half ton trucks carrying the supplies are stopped by a terrorist warlord (armed rebels), negotiation must take place. For the person heading up the relief effort, the key to this negotiation event is to be calm, low-key, and recognize that the warlord needs to get something in return for letting the trucks through. Simply giving the supplies over to the terrorists would be a big mistake, but some compromise must be approached.
Preemption: George W. Bush, while he was president, used preemption, which the Brookings Institution suggests was not a good idea. “A broad-based doctrine of preemption carries serious risks,” the Brookings Institution asserts. In fact elevating the preemptive approach to a “policy doctrine” can bring “negative consequences” because it opens up the image that the U.S. “is too quick to use military force and to do so outside the bounds of international law and legitimacy” (Brookings, 2002). In the case of the Bush preemptive doctrine, it basically suggested to the world that force could be used (in response to suspected terrorist activities anywhere in the world) “without evidence of an imminent attack” (Brookings). The United States should not make preemptive statements to the world such as “You’re either for us or against us,” with the subtle suggestion that the U.S. could attack any group anywhere in the world if there appears to be justification in the minds of U.S. military and political leaders.
Retaliation: It is a commonly accepted policy that when a nation is attacked, it is justified when it retaliates. The classic case is Afghanistan, which was controlled by the Taliban when Osama bin Laden was allowed to train his terrorists in that country. The U.S. pounded Taliban strongholds from the air and drove the Taliban (temporarily) out of the country. Unfortunately, the U.S. then became bogged down in another long unwinnable war and this must be avoided in the future.
Works Cited
Brookings Institution. (2002). The New National Security Strategy and Preemption. Retrieved November 11, 2012, from http://www.brookings.edu.
Fenwick, Helen. (2008). Proactive counter-terrorist strategies in conflict with human rights.
International Review of Law Computers