POLICY ANALYSIS PAPER

Running head: POLICY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET 1

POLICY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET 5

Analysis of The Policy War on Terror

Analysis of Policy on Global Terrorism

Introduction

Terrorism has escalated over the past years, with more dangerous groups like the Al-Qaeda, Islamic state, and the Taliban, etc. coming out as a big threat to deal with. This has led the US government to launch the Global war on terrorism after the September attacks on then-President George W. Bush. The US majorly targeted the Islamic nations that were seen to be either propagating the act of terrorism or were supporting those who were engaging in the acts (Ojo, 2020). The terrorism act has left many families devastated, and the nation has lost many lives and money in trying to mitigate the crisis. Therefore, the government should be ready to enforce more policies that can help curb terrorism.

Definition of the problem

The issue of terrorism is relevant to modern society in many particular ways: to humanity- terrorism is known to affect a person's economic, social, and political life. Besides, they put at risk the lives of individuals while also empowering instability and lack of peace.

Relevance to modern society

Every modern society struggles to ensure they meet the economic, social, and political life that terrorist acts come to destroy. Making it a relevant issue in modern society that needs to be dealt with. Also, terrorism is an urgent issue that needs a quick solution since it can lead to another world war. Acts of terrorism on nations affect both the citizens and the government of the affected nation. The individuals of a nation are affected in that most of their loved ones are pronounced dead and properties destroyed. At the same time, the government has to suffer political instabilities, economic downsize, and the creation of fear among its citizens.

Stakeholders affected

Every human being values life and sees it sacred that one should not take his or her own life; neither should a person take another person's life. Every human's goal is to live as many years as possible and not be cut short by acts of terrorism. Whilst the government also sees life as sacred imposing tough measures to protect it at all cost.

Stakeholder’s goals and values

The policy enacted might affect the lives of individuals and the government. A policy like sanctions on nations prompting terrorism may negatively affect the government and its citizens. The various stakeholders' values privacy, which might be interfered with when implementing the policy on terrorism. For example, the government's policy to identify the radicalized groups may invade people's privacy. Thereby altering the interest of people and their goals. The government values goals such as ensuring their citizens are provided with adequate healthcare, good transport, and enjoy a favorable political arena. Nevertheless, the policy might alter these government policies, lead to a poor transport system and poor health care. Most of the resources would be directed towards ensuring the policy succeeds.

Ways in which communities adapt to upheavals occurring in the societies.

Terrorism effect may lead to the society or nation adapting or changing to help prevent another occurrence. Society can adapt to the upheaval by understanding how the terrorist operates and develop strategies to prevent them from harming. They as well may change to prevent the occurrence of another violent attack by changing their outlook. Such changes may occur when society has failed to come up with ways to adapt to the changes resulting from upheaval.

Evidence in support of this section

The issue of the war on terror is way important considering the negative impacts that result from it. Hence needed to be taken seriously and stopped before it goes out of hand. Different terrorist groups are emerging, creating insecurity among people. Besides, the rate at which they are recruiting new members is alarming and needs to be checked before they choke the whole world. They have increasingly carried out attacks on various parts of the globe. For instance, the attack on the then united states of America George W Bush was an attack of a very higher caliber. Resorting to the creation of the war on terror policy meant to curb the growing acts of terrorism. Nevertheless, we have continued to witness cases of terror attacks meant on people. Therefore, creating more policies to check on the issue is important to lower the cases or curb them completely from occurring.

Rationale and justification for your position

Vulnerability of stakeholders

The stakeholders affected by global terrorism were both the government official, especially the department of defense, and the citizen of the particular nation experiencing terrorism. The stakeholder, especially the individual citizen, is very vulnerable to terrorist attacks (O’Donnell, 2018). Since such attacks may lead them to suffer physical injuries, they may also suffer emotional and psychological trauma. Besides, such people may start to show signs such as fear, anger, or even shock. They also tend to lose control and always guilty for surviving when the rest died. On the other hand, the government as a stakeholder may also be exposed to some risks. The government may lose control over the nation due to each person recommending the best way to stop terrorism, leading to political instability. Also, the government may lose money and resources that could be used to improve the nation’s economy. Instead, it would be used to fight terrorists or used in recovery from terrorist attacks.

Types of stakeholders (marginalized or privileged).

The stakeholder mentioned above, the government, forms part of the most privileged people in society. While the rest of the citizens can be divided into two groups, starting with the ones that enjoy a high privilege and the rest that include the marginalized in the society. The highly privileged ones enjoy a lot of security during such attacks as they are considered first before the rest. Consequently, the marginalized groups, such as the deaf, blind, or disabled, suffer the most during terrorist attacks. They slowly respond to attacks and can easily become causalities during attacks.

Consequences of ignoring stakeholders

Ignoring stakeholders' need for adequate protection may lead them to become casualties during an attack and suffer aftermath problems associated with the terrorist attacks. They then end up suffering depression, increased anxiety, insomnia, and other related injustices such as permanent dents, injuries, and mental disorders like increase, anger, fear, and shock(Lameire et al., 2020) For the government officials ignoring the needs of the marginalized people leads them to be affected by terrorism since there are no measures to aid them even to escape when such uncertainties occur in their presence. Therefore, it good to ensure all stakeholders’ needs are taken into account.

Course of Action

Position statement

Terrorism is a modern society problem that requires identifying radicalized groups and heavy punishment on terrorists to do away with. The issue of war on terror is an issue that has brought more problems to the economy, social and political life of many people, carrying with its pains and agony for the affected individuals. Hence there is a need to develop a strategy to help curb the terrorist from carrying any further attacks.

Propose a course of action

They are several ways that can be used to do away with the problem. The US government can impose sanctions on countries deemed to have a soft spot for the terrorist (De Cauwer et al., 2017). Such countries would then not trade with other countries until they give up on protecting the terrorist. Besides, governments should identify and stop the radicalization movements. Most terrorist uses radicalization to convince people before they turn into violence. Stopping such movements would ensure the terrorist groups lack people to carry out their malicious activities. Moreover, they can heavily punish individuals linked to terrorism, as it serves to scare other people who may want to engage in criminal acts. The solution I proposed is feasible as it won’t cause the government too much cost or time to identify criminal gangs and ensure sanctions on other linked countries to crime and even punish the arrested criminals.

Reinforcing position

Terrorism should be done away with as it has led to agony and suffering for people. A lot of people have lost loved ones due to terrorism; some have even developed mental disorders due to the attacks since most of the terrorists use guns and bombs to torture, innocent people.

Limited policymaking choices

If my policymaking were to be limited al go for the identification and stopping of radicalization group. This would ensure I deny the terrorist groups the human resources required to carry their activities, plus disarming them of the much-needed guns and bombs. It would succeed in ensuring the pain and agony suffered concerning the war on terror is no more.

Factors affecting my policy

The policy of ensuring all the radical groups are identified, stopped, and disarmed would not be easy to implement as it faces a tussle. Challenges include but not limited to, difficulty in identifying the radicalized groups, knowing its members, and its operation means (Stern, 2016). Most terrorist understand they are unwanted in society; hence would ensure their operation to recruit more people is done in the most secretive way that no one gets wind of—making the government toil for them to identify such groups whose operations are hard to understand. The other challenge is that the radical group receives funding from some nations; hence hard to render them bankrupt and stop recruiting activities.

The political impact of my policy

It would bring about some small divisions in the political arena as to those supporting the idea and those against it. One way to ensure the policy is successful would be to enforce sanctions on some countries that are funding this radicalized groups. As such, the political arena would be divided as to why or why not the sanctions should be enforced in certain countries. Additionally, implementing this policy would cost a lot from investing in secret operation services and luring the radical groups to surrender.

Argumentation and Evidence

Evidence to support the proposed policy

The proposal would be effective in curbing terrorism and promoting a world free from terror. Curbing the radicalized groups from conducting their activities means stopping the spread of terrorism. Since no people being recruited into the terror groups means they fall short of the required human resources needed to carry the criminal activities. It would also be effective since the sanctions posted on the countries supporting the groups will begin to burden them. Hence, they may decide to leak information or stop supporting the criminal gangs, leading to the arrest and prosecution of the terrorist. Even the radical groups would be easy to identify since they would be no one to give them a hideout thus, making It easy to stop and disarm them and from bringing more people into the terrorist gang. Furthermore, if the countries stop supporting the radical groups, they would run out of funds to support their recruitment process. Escalating them to stop the process and hence the failure of the terrorist groups. Therefore, the policy would have succeeded in supporting the war on terror in stopping terrorism across the globe.

Conclusion

All people, including the governments, felt terrorism's effects, and all are citizens. The effects on citizens differ depending on the type of person that is the most privileged person in the society against the marginalized persons in society. The privileged people will tend to get more protection and care than the marginalized people who often get affected by terrorist attacks on them as most cannot escape from such scenes.

To stop terrorism, it would be good to employ policies that can help curb the spread from its initial stages before they unleash terror or a given people. One such policy would be to use strategies that aim to identify the radicalized groups, stop their recruiting activities, and disarm them with their guns and bombs that they use to unleash terror on innocent people. The government could employ several means to carry on with their policies, including putting sanctions on countries supporting criminal activities. This would ensure getting to find these radicalized groups much cheaper and stopping them henceforth.

References

De Cauwer, H., Somville, F., Sabbe, M., & Mortelmans, L. J. (2017). Hospitals: a soft target for terrorism?. Prehospital and disaster medicine, 32(1), 94.

Lameire, N., Sever, M. S., Van Biesen, W., & Vanholder, R. (2020, July). Role of the international and national renal organizations in natural disasters: strategies for renal rescue. In Seminars in Nephrology (Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 393-407). WB Saunders.

O'Donnell, A. (2018). Contagious ideas: vulnerability, epistemic injustice, and counter-terrorism in education. Educational Philosophy and theory, 50(10), 981-997.

Ojo, J. S. (2020). Governing “Ungoverned Spaces” in the Foliage of Conspiracy: Toward (Re) ordering Terrorism, from Boko Haram Insurgency, Fulani Militancy to Banditry in Northern Nigeria. African Security, 13(1), 77-110.

Stern, J. (2016). Radicalization to extremism and mobilization to violence: What have we learned and what can we do about it?. The Annals of the American Academy of political and social science, 668(1), 102-117.