4 responses

A good response to others is not something like "I agree." Please find something that you can analyze, add to, critique, explain, disagree with, or something. It should be a few cogent sentences. It should contain something that shows your knowledge of the subject, as well as additional materials you might bring from the web and elsewhere. Apply relevant professional, personal, or other real-world experiences. Supports position with applicable knowledge

You should create substantial responses to your peers. Think of this as your opportunity to teach. Create substantial responses which expand on a point and present information on the topic. Your responses should demonstrate your critical thinking on the topic.

Respond to the following discussions (4X). Write how you would respond to their discussions. (No word count.) Be thoughtful and insightful and it must demonstrate critical thinking and analysis.

Read the following and respond

1. Hello Classmates,

Special operations units have been extremely effective against terrorism. From the assassination of Osama Bin Laden to the raid on Entebbe, groups of highly trained men have performed vital missions against terrorists. The Sayeret Mat'kal (the General Staff's reconnaissance commando unit) mobilized, rehearsed its plans, flew 2,500 miles, and struck at the Entebbe airport, rescuing more than 100 passengers and crew with a minimum loss of life”(Henriksen, 2007, p.18). Elite special forces are some of the best-trained and most formidable units a country can boast. They go where other troops fear to tread, scoping out potential threats, taking out strategic targets, and conducting daring rescue missions. These are the best of the best. Though it's extremely difficult to rank these forces relative to one another, some units that rise above the rest with their track records and the fear they instill in their adversaries. These troops have been through rigorous training exercises designed to weed out those who can't hit their exacting standards. In a world in which the sheer size of a country's military is no longer the only guide to its effectiveness, these troops are the ones that states look to get the job done.

Whatever the target of terrorists, there are multiple ways of hardening the targets to prevent the terrorists from hitting their mark, or reducing the damage of attacks. One method is to place Hostile vehicle mitigation to enforce protective standoff distance outside tall or politically sensitive buildings to prevent car and truck bombing. Another way to reduce the impact of attacks is to design buildings for rapid evacuation (Ronchi, 2015). Another example is aircraft cockpits are kept locked during flights and have reinforced doors, which only the pilots in the cabin are capable of opening. UK railway stations removed their rubbish bins in response to the Provisional IRA threat, as convenient locations for depositing bombs. A more sophisticated target-hardening approach must consider industrial and other critical industrial infrastructure that could be attacked. Terrorists need not import chemical weapons if they can cause a major industrial accident such as the Bhopal disaster or the Halifax Explosion. Industrial chemicals in manufacturing, shipping, and storage need greater protection, and some efforts have been made (Weiss, 2005).

The major challenge to designing, implementing, and maintaining a counterterrorism policy is that it can be a task that will never end. “Counterterrorism should be seen not as an effort to rid the world of terrorism, but as an ongoing struggle to constrict the operating environment in which terrorists raise funds, procure documents, engage in support activities, and conduct attacks” (Levitt, 2004, p.33). A secondary challenge to creating counterterror policy is the political consideration. Is there a political party willing to lie about national security to win votes? A country in which politicians conduct propaganda operations against their defenders cannot expect to create an effective counterterror policy. Roberts discusses “ three components of any government that must come together to form an alliance of shared capabilities, risk analysis, and political resolve” (2011, p. 125).

2. It is my opinion that special operation forces are a necessary component of an effective, national counter terrorist strategy.  These forces can be utilized to eliminate or capture high-value individuals within terrorist organizations.  A prime example of the effectiveness of these units is the assassination of Osama bin Laden.  Members from Seal Team Six were deployed and successfully carried out the assassination of the most wanted terrorist in U.S. history (Mazzetti, Cooper, & Baker, 2011).  These units are more effective than their conventional forces counterparts for two critical reasons:  training and funding.  Needless to say, it is common knowledge that special operating forces receive more extensive training than their conventional forces counter-parts.  Naturally, this is attributed to the “special” nature of the mission sets that these units are responsible for conducting.  The second piece to consider is that of an increased budget.  A large portion of this budget is attributed to training, which was previously mentioned.  The training is very specific, tailored towards each specific mission.  Furthermore, funding for support equipment is also quite expansive.

In cases where tangible intelligence does not warrant an immediate need of physical action, I believe the following two options are quite effective:  diplomacy and economic sanctions.  Once again, these two factors are intertwined.  These routes should be pursued as they can put immense political and economic pressure on nations and/or organizations that are known to support terrorism.  Another effective means of counter terrorism is cyber data collection.  It is possible to collect enough information from electronic communications to predict and possible thwart potential terrorist activity.

3. Psychological Operations has been the one option I believe to be the most effective, and it involves less risk.  By conducting PsyOps you can involve locals by giving them information that can help the cause, and it also allows for information to reach that one person that may be able to help.  PsyOps work better elsewhere, but not so much in the US.  Profiling an area is considered wrong, even if it makes a difference but fear of public backlash creates an environment that criminals (terrorists) can thrive in.  PsyOps have been effective in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and even South Korea.  The whole knowledge is key, or see something say something goes a long way.  Educating locals can be what brings locals and First Responder together for one cause.  I see the option of not doing anything the most ineffective, and I cannot stress it enough that politics play a major factor in this issue.  Instead of putting information out regarding a particular group(s), politicians are fearful of the liberal logic that ties their hands.  There is a separation between groups and the good don’t need to be lumped with the bad by LE/CTU, just like we shouldn’t assume that everyone in that group is good. 

I do not believe that one single unit has a major effect in areas where terrorism is a constant, but I do believe that they do leave lasting impressions.  The terror groups base their hold on community completely on fear, whereas CTU and specialized units base their actions on resolutions, but even with millions of dollars spent in communities overseas they still find themselves taking the sides of terrorists.  CT is a world-wide effort, but there isn’t enough resources to protect homelands while trying to protect those who don’t want it.  I believe impressions in the present hold more significance on future generations, the development of relationships with leaders and children play a huge role in future endeavors.  Professionalism and respect to locals goes a long way in combating any type of crime, but unless a constant presence is there every operation will fail.

4. Class, I apologize in the event that my responses to M6D1 and M6D2 seem somewhat redundant.  However, I did them independently without realizing that this discussion is more specific.  With that being said, I certainly think other counter terrorist methods work efficiently in conjunction with elite counter terrorist units.  Cyberwarfare measures and data collection are two complimentary methods to counter terrorist operations.  Tangible intelligence is required for any special operations tasking.  Cyberwarfare can be utilized to disable or sabotage and intended targets electronic communications infrastructure.  Also mentioned in M6D1, I believe that diplomacy and economic sanctions are effective components of a counter terrorism program.  These measures can ensure the maximum political and economic pressure possible on a government or organization that is suspected of conducting or supporting terrorists’ activities.

From a big picture stand-point, I think that elite units have a positive impact and play a critical role in counter terrorism efforts.  Historically, there are some instances of these units not successfully completing their assigned mission.  However, their presence alone should act as somewhat of a deterrence.  The case of the assassination of Osama bin Laden should be a prime example of the necessity of these types of units.  I do not think it is practical to assume that conventional forces could have completed the mission, that was conducted by the SEAL team.  The stakes were simply too high, and there was zero room for operator error.  The more stringent training requirements of these units makes them an indispensable piece of the counter terrorism effort.